|Hmong people has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Society. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|A news item involving Hmong people was featured on Wikipedia's main page in the In the news section on 28 December 2009.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
- 1 Rank among Chinese ethnic groups
- 2 BC
- 3 Hmong/Mong or Miao
- 4 Nomenclature
- 5 How ancient is Hmong civilization?
- 6 Language?
- 7 Heroin
- 8 Edgar Buell
- 9 Long Cheng
- 10 Chai Vang
- 11 I don't know enough to revert this confidently
- 12 blue eyes, blonde hair
- 13 Recently removed
- 14 Nomenclature paragraph
- 15 Hmong Funerals
- 16 Internal Consistency
- 17 Celebrities
- 18 Hmong in the United States
- 19 Vandalism by user 184.108.40.206
- 20 Map
- 21 Pronunciation
- 22 They live mainly in...
- 23 Vietnam
- 24 Hmong vs. Mong
- 25 Major problems in several sections of the article
- 26 New Miao people page
- 27 Hmong/Mong
- 28 Demographics/Population
- 29 The word "Moob"
- 30 Material moved to Hmong American page
- 31 Editing History
- 32 Demographics renamed Population
- 33 Hmong flag
- 34 Comments on Hmong marriage practices
- 35 Recent edits - definition of Miao and Savina
- 36 Origin belief#Hmong
- 37 Info about HR 5234
- 38 Bride capture
- 39 Deletion vote
- 40 Recent changes
- 41 Citation?
- 42 Good Article
- 43 The Americas
- 44 external links
- 45 Flower Hmong
- 46 Popular Culture
- 47 What the Hmong Taught The Chinese
- 48 = Burmese Name for the Hmong
- 49 More sources
- 50 Hmong Daw Wikipedia ready to accept contributions
- 51 Flower Hmong
- 52 Hmong in Cambodia
- 53 File:Vangpao.png Nominated for Deletion
- 54 Van Binai
- 55 A possible source
- 56 merge?
- 57 Vang Pao in the community leaders section
- 58 Hmong clans origins
- 59 Photo File: H'Mong (novembre 2011) (10) "Red Hmong of Vietnam"
- 60 ¿Male H'mông?
Rank among Chinese ethnic groups
List of Chinese ethnic groups gives the Miao as the 5th most populous ethnic group in China. This article says 4th. Neither is clear on sources. Can anyone sort this out? -- Jmabel 01:18, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- The 4th largest minority; the 5th largest nationality. There is no dispute on this whatsover. No need to cite sources, you can easily find dozens. If you want the exact population, then maybe you can cite source. --Menchi 01:54, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- With your edit, that is now clear. I thought there was a conflict in the claim. -- Jmabel 02:33, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The articles says, "The Miao groups of China have, to my knowledge, voiced no such concern" [emphasis mine]. "My" obviously has no place in the article. Is there any way of mentioning this fact while citing someone other than "me"? Perhaps "The Department of Anthropology at the Australian National University is not aware of any concern voiced by the Miao groups of China"? – [[User:Mxn|Minh Nguyễn (talk, blog)]] 23:52, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I've edited in a way I think handles this decently (not ideally, because the person who originally wrote this did not give us the author or name of article). -- Jmabel | Talk 06:28, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
If "Miao" is considered disparaging why is it used so frequently? Dustin Asby 19:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
To reply your question, Miao in Chinese is not derogatory but Hmong or Mang is derogatory.
A: Miao=Hmong; Hmong=Miao "Miao" is not the problem, the slang term "Meo" is derogatory in the same sense that "Nigger" is derogatory, but not "Nigga".
The names "Hmong" and "Mang" are not derogatory as they are self-designating names embraced by the people who refer to themselves as such.
Kira Lynn 10:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- So we're looking for an accurate date for a legendary battle? ;) According to , the earlier date is "correct". I suspect that the changer was trying to correct it, and was thinking of another emperor called Huangdi (they almost all were). Mark1 01:46, 30 Nov 2004
Hmong/Mong or Miao
Miao is what the Chinese call Hmong or Mong. Hmong is what Hmong people call themselves. Hmong are Miao to the Chinese, and Miao means Hmong to the Chinese. Since the dawn of time, Hmong call themselves Hmong. The Chinese sinicize everything and corrupt enunciation. For example, Micheal, becomes Mi-Ke (pronounced, Mai-Kuh). America becomes, Mei-guo. English becomes, Yin-wen. It is just easier for the Chinese speaking person to say Miao than Hmong.
Miao has never been a derogoratary term for Hmong people. It is the term "Meo" as used by ethnic Lao people that was derogoratory to Hmong people.
We all know that Miao is a nationality and covers many ethnic groups. Miao is not exclusively Hmong. But, Miao connotes exclusively Hmong. For example, the Miao Rebellion did not mean those non-Hmong ethnic rebels, it meant those ethnic Hmong rebels. The Chinese may have considered Hmong people to be barbarians, but the reality is that Hmong and ethnic Han have a lot in common; their languages, cultures, beliefs, etc..., are all semantically and some syntatically alike.
- My father performs some rituals that uses ancient Chinese words. My great grandfather had many Hmong business friends from Guizhou who were Chinese to Hmong people because they had assimilated completely into Chinese culture. Hmong and Chinese are threads of the same fabric, sometimes intersecting and sometimes running parallel.
The definition of Hmong and Miao is resolved in my opinion, but requires clarifcation. The problem of "Chinese" remains a bigger issue. What is considered "Chinese" and who contributed to "Chinese" remains an ever more complex identity query.
"Hmong" is what one of the four main groups of the Miao peoples called themselves. Calling the ethno-cultural group all Hmong because Miao is a Chinese word is akin to calling all Native Americans Cherokees because Indian is an English word possibly demeaning to Native Americans.
Why is it that in Chinese, the "Mong" are known for and written as "Miao"? To answer this question, one must know who's the keeper of history in China. What we know about Mong history today was written by Chinese scholars hundreds and thousands of years ago. What do you do when you write your own history? Well, you write it as you see fit; you write it the way that's satisfactory to your people and leaders; you call other people whatever name you want or write it as closely as you hear it spoken. The fact is that the Mong never labeled themselves as "Miao." Many Mong Americans visited the Mong in China recently. When met, the Chinese Mong introduced themselves as "Mong," not "Miao." Yes, when writing or speaking to a Chinese person or official, they may say they are "Miao" or "Miao-tse" but this is because they have to use a name the Chinese would understand or recognize. This is why "Mong" should be used when referring to this group of people, and not "Miao."----Tomx 03:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
"However, I think that it is best to use Miao as a general term, especially as this is in accord with tradition and is also practical for making the situation clear to persons not specialising in Miaology." I am Hmong, and according to my point of view, you can't put your own opinion into such article when you have no understanding what so ever about being called Hmong or Miao. Isn't the article about facts, not what you think? By writing such things, students, teachers, or who ever is researching about Miao or Hmong would state your quote as fact, not opinion.
August 29, 2003.
Many of you had mention Miao in this discussion, but you all missed understood and over looked the history. The word Miao did not mean cat or originated by the Chinese. however this term "Miao" invented by Hmong themselves. The term Miao which is known for centuries or to Lao, Thai, Chinese & others came from the great Kingdom of San Miao. The Kingdom of San Miao was Hmong whom had ruled large parts of China for 1,000 years, and many groups such as Lao, Thai, Chinese might have been lived under San Miao. Because these groups were ruled by San Miao for 1,000 years that why Hmnong was known to Lao, Thai, Chinese and others as Miao. When these groups called "Hmong" Miao they referred to San Miao Kingdom. San Miao was a strong, powerful kingdom. Moreover, the word San Miao meant 3 Hmong Brothers whom created the San Miao Kingdom, and also the word "San" in Chinese meant 3, right. Anyaway I am proud to be called Miao. However, if any of you want to know more about Miao you should research more especially the San Miao era. "Hmong, you should proud to be called Miao" when they called you Miao they remembering our Kingdom of San Miao
- Adjusted --Kaihsu 06:35, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Re-Adjusted and moved from top. --Gtfourdreams 08:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
6 September 2007
In her article "Common Basis and Characteristics of the Miao and Hmong Identity" author Zhang Xiao, the Director of the Institute of Culture of Minorities, Provincial Academy of Social Sciences of Guizhou, states the following as it relates to this subject matter:
"Here I need to talk about why the people in China are called "Miao", and why Miao people may accept this name because I have encountered too many overseas Hmong who have asked this question. Some have even used sharp tone in their questions such as "Why call the Hmong people "Miao"?, "Does "Miao" mean "Miaozu"? or "Can it be changed into "Hmong"? According to Miao history, the Miao people called themselves with a name that sounds close to the sound of "Miao". "Miao" might be a self-addressing sound, which corresponds to the Chinese word "Miao". The name of "Miao" has a long history that everybody knows, and was generally accepted by the Miao people. Therefore, the Miao people were named "Miao Zu". In the old songs of Western Miao, the Miao called themselves "A hmaud" in ancient times. According to linguists, in ancient time, "Miao" and "A hmaud" would have had the same pronunciation. Now the Miao call themselves "Hmong" and also use "Miao" since both derive from the tone changes of "A hmaud". "Miao" was in fact the way the Miao people addressed themselves using sounds of Chinese characters in ancient time. It was used back to the era of "San Miao".
"Miao" in Chinese characters combines radical "grass" with "rice field", which means the seedling of cereal crops. Some scholars said that this information indicates that the Miao were farming people. It does not matter what use "Miao" was as a name of tribe; it did not mean to lower the dignity of this group. Some outsiders have used "Miao Zu" to scold Miao people, making the word "Miao" a sub name for foolishness and ignorance. But this negative connotation was added later on to "Miao". Back to the ancient society when Chi You was the leader, the ancestral tribe "Jiu Li" was the strongest one. Even experiencing defeats, this tribe would still rise and become strong again, which explains why rulers of ancient China, always classified the Miao as barbarians and tried to suppress and the same time conquer them. The expression of "Miao Zu" came from stereotype and insult.
After 1949 with the establishment of the New China, the government promoted the policy if equality among all races. The status of Miao people was thus raised. The term "Miao" as an insulting term has vanished with the end of persecution of the Miao people. The new laws allow the term "Miao" as a self-addressing term to return to its original purpose and intent. Now there are still people using the term of "Miao Zu" to push down people but it has nothing to do with the identity of the ethnic group. The expression of "Miao Zu" in contemporary China has nothing to do with demeaning or insulting Miao people. The overseas Miao or Hmong people migrated to other countries during the Ming and Qing dynasty, especially during the "White Red War". In the rebellious war against Qing, the feudal rulers greatly suppressed and slaughtered the Miao in Yunnan province who were forced to move out of China. During this time, the Miao people were particularly humiliated by using expressions such as "Miao Zu" to insult the Miao people. Finally, the term "Miao" has remained in the memory of Hmong people an insulting term, which caused the feeling of aversion toward this term. Such a situation is understandable. But I would to take this opportunity to inform all of the overseas Miao people that the time of humiliation is long gone. Please, let's trust the term of "Miao Zu" as an original term of reference to our ethnic group."
The above is a rough English translation of an excerpt from her article, which made its' way to me by email. I do not take any credit for this translation. Lacking the original (website) source of this article, I have uploaded it onto a file sharing site - the entire article in its' original language can be viewed and downloaded here:
Kira Lynn 05:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The Chinese expeditioners and invaders gave to the Hmong the appelation "Miao", which later became "Meo" and "Man". Latter term means the southern "barbarian" - an expression formerly used, in Europe, by the Romans to designate other peoples.
Obj. 1 - Is it fair to say that the term "Miao2" as it's being referenced here to mean "barbarian" would be on a par with other terms that are translated as barbarian (e.g., Xiongnu)?
Obj. 2 - I'm relatively sure that the Romans never said "man" to mean "barbarian". Or "barbarian", which is an English word of Greek origin (barbaros), for that matter. Can someone explain the meaning of this sentence?
siafu 23:51, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How ancient is Hmong civilization?
The following paragraph is found within the "History" section of this article:
"In China, the first recorded Hmong kingdom was called Jiuli, and its ruler or rulers, had the title, Chiyou. Chiyou is also spelled Zhiyou (pinyin) and Txiv Yawg (RPA Hmong). Chiyou means father-grandfather, and is a title equal to, but no less, than emperor. No one goes by the title, Chiyou, today. Chiyou's ancestors are thought to be the Liangzhu people. The Liangzhu people are credited with creating proto-characters for today's Chinese, Korean, and Japanese characters. Chiyou is responsible for ushering people of the Far East into the civilized era; he established a central government system, penal laws, and religion. His people's achievements also included melting metal for weapons. Jiuli was said to have jurisdiction over 9 tribes and 81 clans; Chiyou's unification ability was unsurpassed; his ethnic Han contemporaries, Huangdi and Yandi, both blood brothers, were divided and could not confront Jiuli individually.eved to have a history even longer than that of the Han Chinese."
The assertion that Chiyou is reponsible for ushering people of the Far East into the civilized era is a bit far-reaching, and perhaps borders on being a non-neutral point-of-view, unless this part can be made strictly and unequivocally into the recounting of an oral mythology or oral history. In the same vein, I think it would be irresponsible to argue that the Nikkeejin or the people of Shilla brought civilization to the Far East. Specifically, what are the primary sources for this assertion? Or is this paragraph still recounting the oral narrative of the Hmong, or perhaps the single viewpoint of a Wikipedia contributor who believes the Hmong civilized Asia? What is a "proto-character"? This is too unclear. I will be editing this until it becomes acceptable unless a buttressing argument for all these assertions in the above paragraph can be made.Wilgamesh 17:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What does the following sentence in the first paragraph mean?
- "The group is believed to have a history even longer than that of the Han Chinese."
Does this sentence mean that there is a recorded history that is longer than that of the Han Chinese? Does this sentence mean that the mythology of the Hmong mentions Han Chinese culture? Does it mean the Hmong believe that, as a group, they have existed since and before the rise of Han culture? Perhaps it means that in the earliest possible recorded Han Chinese texts, there is evidence of a pre-existent Hmong culture? I think this sentence is a too unclear, and sets a misleading context for the rest of the article. Can someone buttress this statement? wilgamesh
- I don't think so and I'll delete it. Babelfisch 13:20, 17 Jun 2005 (Beijing Time)
Interesting to see no one has pointed out the fact the Kingdom of Chu 楚 was mostly Miao, although the ruling family was 夷 people from present day Shangdong migrated to the Han River region in Hubei. In an Confucist classic, when Mencius visited the King of Chu, the King called himself 百蛮之王, "The King of 100 Man Tribes". Modern scholars agree that the Man 蛮 was what the Chu people call themselves and might be cognated to Hmong.
Before you get too excited, 蠻 and 夷 were referring two different kind of people lives(ed) in the southern part of china, well if you see 楚 also part of China at that time space. 蠻 and 夷 were only became or popularized as a collective term for the southern tribes after a very long time from the Warring State Period, and this is used in the form of "蠻夷". Finally 百蠻之王 should be translate as The King of Hundred Tribes". ChowHui (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I get redirected to this page when I type in Hmong language, however, I don't see any information on the structure of language on this page. Can we make a Hmong language page -seperate from this one? (anon, 18 April 2005)
- Absolutely. Go for it. And definitely link it from this article. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:00, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
Recently added to the article: "Some Hmong also have allegedly been involved in, or complicit with, heroin and opium trafficking, since the drugs are largely produced in the Asian highlands in which the Hmong reside." In general, we don't go into criminal matters in articles on ethnic groups, unless there is a very strong and demonstrable connection. It's particularly inappropriate as an uncited and vague remark ("Some…have allegedly…"). I honestly don't know the extent of present-day Hmong involvement in the opium and heroin trade, but would suggest that this sentence either be removed outright, or replaced by something that (1) has clear citation and (2) indicates whether Hmong are any more involved in this than other ethnic groups in the area. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:33, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
A recent anonymous edit without citation changed "The Hmong community believed that Vang may have been framed by anti-Hmong racists, but others believe that Vang was in fact anti-white" to "The Hmong community believed that Vang may have been framed by anti-Hmong racists, but others believe that the white hunters were anti-hmong and are members of the KKK." This is a complete change of meaning, with no citation indicated. I haven't been active in this article, and I know nothing about the facts of the case, so I'm just pointing this out, but I suspect a revert would be in order. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:32, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
- chai vang is an individual acting on his own accord. his actions are not representative of the hmong community and because the case is still not yet settled with the details of the case not fully realized yet, his reference and the events surrounding him, should not be included in this article. july 19, 2005. tlee
I don't know enough to revert this confidently
A series of recent edits from an anonymous account --  -- turn several statements on their heads (e.g. the dialects went from "mutually unintelligible" to "mutually and highly intelligible" -- I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean, maybe a typo for "mutually and highly intelligible"? But I doubt that is true), remove pieces of the article, all without citation, also introduce some typographical errors. In with it are a couple of clearly good edits. I'm very suspicious of these edits in general, but not expert on the topic, so I'm not reverting, but I would sure appreciate if someone more knowledgable would weigh in on these changes, see what might be worth keeping, and revert the rest. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:36, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
-Please remove this section of Chai Vang for most of the statement above wants attention. Do not make Chai Vang a rumor and this is bias. pxiong
blue eyes, blonde hair
Although it's rare, I know that some Hmong people have blue eyes and a lighter hair color than black. I heard that at some point in their history they ran into the French. Does anyone know if this is true or have another explanation for this phenomenon?
I disargee with writer who first raised the issue that Hmong people have blue eyes. My assumption to his writing is that, he was a westerner who took adventures to the Far East, and when he first saw a Hmong family with blue eyes with fair skin in which is similar to his own complexion that caught his attention. I remember reading his notes, he did not mention about other families. It is the same thing if I go to the middle east and when I see the Asians (chinese-like) who have same complexion as mine I will be more curious about their lives. Who knows, at that time a Hmong woman could have mated with a Westerner (French, Russion etc) or a French woman could have mated with a Hmong man. One family of blue eyes does not represent whole Hmong. You can see in our community there are numbers of blue eyes, white hairs and fair skin. These have to do with genetic puzzles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't believe it's from the French. This phenomenon also appears in the Hmong still in their homelands. Although I don't have the source handy, I remember reading that it is supposed by cultural anthropologists that the blue eyes/light hair genes are remnants from the Hmong people's contact with Caucasoid people in their ancient past in the Northern China/Siberia region (before their migration south began). The source also stated that this phenomenon also occurs among the Mongolian ethnic group in present day Mongolia and in Ethnic Chinese in the Muslim Provinces of China for the same reason. If anybody happens to read this and is interested, let me know and I'll try to find my source material and cite it for you.--WilliamThweatt 00:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, current evidence supports the theory that Hmong people originated in Siberia and had blonde hair and blue eyes. Up to the 17th century, most Hmong had blonde hair and blue eyes. "The Chinese defeated the Hmong and as punishment for their rebellion, ordered the death of every male Hmong they could find, even children and infants.". Since most Hmong had blonde hair and blue eyes, they were easy to pick out and kill. Only Male Hmong who did not have blonde hair and blue eyes were able to survive -forcing a sort of microevolution of the race towards looking more Asian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 27 August 2006.
- Quincy, Keith. Hmong: History of a People. Washington: Eastern Washington University Press, 1988. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) 28 August 2006.
- Unfortunately, Quincy uses unattributed sources to come up with this conjecture which is very much based on myths perpetuated by early missionaries to the area. There is no "current evidence" besides Quincy's unfounded reiterations of these myths and misinterpretations of Hmong history and culture (which border on the racist.) Quincy is neither a historian nor an expert on Hmong studies and the much of the book does not stand up to scrutiny. For a summary of some of the problems with the text see: Nicholas Tapp. "The State of Hmong Studies." Hmong/Miao in Asia. Silkworm Books: Chiang Mai, Thailand (2004). (I'll fix the bibliographic format later.)--Nposs 21:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Woman on the left has blonde hair: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Can_Cau_market_%286223927056%29.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- A single isolated example isn't worth much. Could also be albinism, even if European admixture could be excluded (like through a DNA test).
- I'm not aware of any evidence that prehistorical ethnicities of (Indo-)European origin have immigrated to Southern China (let alone that Hmong–Mien peoples or languages originated outside of Southern China). The Seima-Turbino Phenomenon perhaps, but that's very uncertain.
- Better evidence (preferrably academic citations) would definitely be needed for the idea of fair-haired, blue-eyed Hmong, or external influx, or both. Now that DNA research has made genetic genealogy possible, there's no principled reason this issue couldn't be shed more light on. Unless it's all a phantom, of course. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- The Liangzhu people are credited with creating proto-characters for today's Chinese, Korean, and Japanese characters. Chiyou is responsible for ushering people of the Far East into the civilized era; he established a central government system, penal laws, and religion. His people's achievements also included melting metal for weapons. … Chiyou's unification ability was unsurpassed; his ethnic Han contemporaries, Huangdi and Yandi, both blood brothers, were divided and could not confront Jiuli individually.
The above was recently removed anonymously and without comment; since there is no cited source, and I know nothing about this, I am not restoring. It seemed a substantial enough deletion that it should not pass without remark. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:16, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
I am removing the following text, added by 188.8.131.52, from the bottom of the page, since it doesn't seem to fit with the article. Move to Wikisource?
According to Hmong tradition, a long time ago the rivers and ocean covered the Earth. A brother and sister were locked in a yellow wooden drum. The Sky People looked out and saw the Earth. Everything was dead. Only a yellow wooden drum was left on the water.
"Punch holes in the Earth so the water will drain away," said the King above the Sky.
The water went down. Finally, the drum bumped against the ground. The brother and sister came out of the drum and looked around. Everything was dead.
"Where are the people?" asked the sister.
But the brother had an idea. "All the people on Earth are gone. Marry me, we can have children."
"I can't marry you, we are brother and sister."
But he asked her again and again and she said, "No."
Finally the brother said, "Let's carry the grindstones up the hill and roll them into the valley. If the stones land on top of each other, then you shall marry me."
The sister rolled her stone and then, as soon as the brother rolled his stone he ran as fast as he could down the hill and stacked the stones on top of each other.
When the sister saw the stones she cried. Finally she said, "I will marry you, because it was meant to be."
A year later the wife gave birth to a baby, but the baby was not a real baby. It had no arms or legs. It was just round like a pumpkin. The husband cut it up and threw the pieces away. One piece fell on the garden and it became the "Vang" clan because "Vang" sounds like the word for "garden" in Hmong. One piece fell on the goat house. Some pieces fell on the leaves and grass and they became the other Hmong clans. The Nhia, Mhoua, Pao, Ho, Xiong, Vu, and so on.
The next morning the village was full of houses. Everyone came to the husband and wife and said, "Mother and father, come have breakfast with us."
The husband said to his wife, "I asked you to marry me because all the people on Earth were dead. Now these people are our family -- our sons and daughters."
A source is mentioned for part of the text here. Is that public domain stuff? jheijmans
Yes, the material from the newsletter can be distibuted freely upon acknowledgement. No copyrights. BTW those material only contributed to the account on nomenclature whereas I wrote the course in history Ktsquare
- OK, maybe you should put that notice with the acknowledgement. jheijmans
I suggest some cleaning up. The following section is one of the first sections. The title implies that this will be a discussion of the nomenclature 'miao' and 'hmong'. One would expect a discussion of the merits and deficiencies of either term, or who uses which term when and why. Instead, the 2nd line onwards, the paragraph starts talking about where they live in Southern China, and where in Thailand, laos, Vietnam, Myanmar, etc.
Nomenclature: Miao and Hmong
Two terms, Miao and Hmong (or H'mong in Vietnam), are both currently used to refer to one of the aboriginal peoples of China. They live mainly in southern China, in the provinces of Guizhou, Hunan, Yunnan, Sichuan, Guangxi and Hubei. According to the 2000 census, the number of 'Miao' in China was estimated to be about 9.6 million. Outside China they live in Thailand, Laos (where they are known as Lao Soung), Vietnam and Myanmar due to migrations starting in the 18th century, and also in the United States, French Guiana, France and Australia as a result of recent migrations in the aftermath of the Indochina and Vietnam wars between 1949 and 1975. Altogether there are approximately 8 million speakers of Miao languages. This language family, which consists of 3 languages and 30-40 mutually and highly intelligible dialects, belongs, together with the Bunu language, to the Miao branch of the Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao) language family.
This is not nomenclature, but rather now a explanation of what/who/where constitutes the miao/hmong peoples. This seems like a demographics topic, doesn't it? At best, the 'nomenclature' means defining who are the miao and hmong by virtue of where they live. But this implies that there is controversy as to what constitutes hmong and miao, which is a more fundamental question that is belied by the imprecise title nomenclature
Toward the end of this section, it's a bit more informative: a discussion of who uses hmong/miao, and western and chinese and hmong/miao viewpoints towards this is mentioned.Wilgamesh 22:16, 20 October 2005
( HMONG FLAGE??? I don't think that flag is considering Hmong Flag, it look like Chofa flag. (Anon).
- I've removed the flag- it seems to be just some bloke on the Internet's idea of what a Hmong flag might be like: . Mark1 15:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I've heard that Hmong funerals are a lot different than western ones. I've seen Hmong obituaries that list funerals as 24 or 48 hours long. Can someone that's knowledgeable about Hmong funerals write a section about them? --Tar Heel 07:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
-- Traditional Hmong funerals in the US generally last 3 or 4 days. (I don't know how or if it differs from the Hmong in Asia. However, christian Hmong differ, generally following christian funeral traditions.) The first day is generally preparation for the funeral itself. Among preparation, relatives fold "paper money" which looks like what children these days fold into "paper boats" out of special paper. They represent gold and silver bars which are to be taken with the deceased into the next world. The second day the deceased is displayed and friends and relatives mourn. There is a lot of kneeling and burial songs are played through the traditional "qeej".
- "The khaen ( pronounced roughly 'cane' and spell qeej transliterated Hmong) is a bamboo and wooden mouth organ found throughout Eastern Asia. It is one of the oldest harmonic instruments in the world. References to the Chinese version dating as far back as 1100 BC have been found. These Asian bamboo pipes may also be a distant ancestor of the western organ.
- The most important function of the khaen for the Hmong is during the funeral ceremony when it is played continuously for many days. The soul of the deceased cannot return to the ancestors without this ceremony, which is fundamental to the Hmong world view. The khaen is also played at the New Year Festival and special occasions." - http://www.hmongnet.org/hmong-au/qeej.htm
Most funerals go all through the night into the next morning on the 3rd day. On the 4th day they bury the body. Sorry, I know thats not a lot but its what I know from my own experience. And those are the few things which are signification to Hmong funerals.
Traditionally, similiar to most Chinese, I do know that Hmong graves sites are generally desired to be up high on the mountains on the side which faces the sunrise. Although the person has deceased their condition of the body will effect their spirit. Those deceased who are not given a proper burial never rest completely nor well and the condition of ancestorial spirits will also have an effect on their descendants. In fact, many traditional Hmong today who have relatives who had died in the wars of previous are still finding themselves having to perform burial rights for their ancestors. Also, different clans of Hmong will have different burial appearances. Some cover their graves with stones, some with sticks, some with cloth, and so on.
On a side note, most traditional Hmong believe they will be reborn into the physical world again, genarally as children to their own descendants. Although there isn't a time frame and some evil souls are prevented from being born again. The condition of their previous lives effect their current lives. Slaves become masters, debts and obligations are paid, lovers find each other, etc. --Gtfourdreams 07:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Prior to the first day of the funeral, there is what's called "zov hmo", literally translated it means "night watch." Zov hmo may last a few days and takes place between the day the person died and the first day of funeral (in western countries, Hmong people usually hold funerals on the weekends to accommodate 40 hour work week and school). More often than not, I find that little reference is given to this aspect of a traditional Hmong funeral, however, I personally feel that this is an integral part of the funeral process. During zov hmo, relatives will gather at the home of the deceased to console the grieving family members and help in the preparations for the funeral. It is during this time that all major preparations for the funeral are made (e.g. folding and cutting ceremonial paper, purchasing burial plot and casket, sewing the funeral outfit for the deceased, purchasing food and supplies, notifying and summoning far away relatives of the death of their family member, delegation of important tasks and jobs, renting the funeral home, etc...). It is important to note that the participation of the immediate family members in the preparation for the funeral is kept at a minimal as most of the work will be done by relatives.
Hmong funerals in western countries typically last three to four days with no intermission. The first day is the preparation of the body. On this day, relatives will help clean and dress the deceased into his/her funeral clothes. The days reserved for mourning varies depending on how long the funeral will last, and the burial occurs on the final day.
A very important aspect of a traditional Hmong funeral that cannot and must not go unmentioned are the recitals of the Qhuab Ke (Showing The Way), the Qeej Tu Siav (Song of Expiring Life) and the Txiv Xaiv (Message Speaking or Relaying Message).
The Qhuab Ke is the first song to be recited during a funeral. The purpose of this song is to guide the soul of the deceased back to the home of its' ancestors where it will wait to be reincarnated again. This song also tells of the creation of the world, the first couple, and of the great flood. The Qeej Tu Siav is a lengthy set of instructions for the deceased that is played on the qeej. The Txiv Xaiv is a lament for the deceased intended to bring comfort to the living. This song is performed on the night before the day of the burial. Though these three songs are vital to the funeral, they are not the only songs that are recited. Another song that is played on the qeej is the "Qeej Sawv Kev" (Song of Mounting The Way). This is the final song that is performed right before the deceased is taken from the funeral home to the cemetery to be buried.
Hmong people also observe three post burial rituals. The first is the "Xi Plig" which takes place 13 days after the burial. It is important to note that Hmong people believe that they have three souls. At the moment of one's death, one soul will journey back to the land of its' ancestors, a second will remain in the grave with the body and the third will go to "Heaven" where it will become a protective ancestor spirit. The Xi Plig ceremony deals with the second soul, the one which remains in the grave. During this ceremony the second soul is invited back into the house before it is finally sent back into the grave. It is this soul that can become a malicious ghost if not appeased properly and must be told never to return again during the ritual. The second ritual is called "Tso Plig" (Releasing The Soul). This ritual is performed within a year or so after the death of a person. The purpose of this ritual is to liberate the soul from trivial worldly concerns and once the rites have been properly observed this soul will no longer trouble its' living relatives. The final post burial ritual is called "Nyuj Dab". This ritual differs from the first two in two ways 1)this ritual is performed many many years after the death and 2)this ritual is only performed after a family member of the deceased has become seriously ill, upon which a shaman will be summoned to investigate whether or not the illness is caused by a deceased ancestor not having been honored by a Nyuj Dab ceremony. If this is the case, then bulls and cows are sacrificed to the ancestor to provide for it on its' long journey. After this rite has been performed, no more rituals need be performed for the concerned ancestor.
Kira Lynn 08:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering if it is supposed to be Hmong or H'mong. If either is acceptable, choose one.
- actually judgin from the Talk Page and most of the article, I'll change them so they're all Hmong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 7 Jan 2006.
"Hmong" is written as spoken in the White Hmong dialect. The other acceptable name is "Mong," the word used by Mong Leng, who are the majority of the Mong people in China today.
"Brenda Song of 'The Suite Life of Zack and Cody' aired on the Disney Channel" was inserted into a remark about economic opportunity in the U.S. I think it would be appropriate to list some famous and celebrated Hmong people, but this sat very awkwardly where it was, so I removed it. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- There was an episode of "Grey's Anatomy" which aired in Fall 2005 depicting a hmong patient who before being operated on needs to have a shaman perform religious rights. They end up flying a shaman in from out of town before operating. --Gtfourdreams 07:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Hmong individual's blog about her feelings on the episode. http://yellowcontent.blogspot.com/2005/10/greys-anatomy.html
- Bring the Pain - Season 2, Episode 5
Air Date: 10/23/2005
Meredith and Dr. Shepherd have to use more than medicine when a young woman's traditionalist, religious father forbids her to have a life-saving operation. Meanwhile, George and Alex are forced to perform surgery under less than ideal conditions in an attempt to save a patient's life, and its decision time for Derek and the two women in his life. http://abc.go.com/primetime/greysanatomy/episodes/2005-2006/5.html
There was also an episode on Doogie Howser M.D. where he had to treat a Hmong patient. Parts of it can be viewed here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=lprFzceWRDw
Kira Lynn 10:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmong in the United States
I couldn't help but notice this section makes no mention of the severe gang problem affecting Hmong youth in the United States. It mentions other things like poverty level, low percentage of higher education, discrimination, etc. The problem of the gang lifestyle and drug use/sale is an important element affecting the condition of life for the Hmong in the United States and should be addressed here as well. I know if may not a be very flattering picture of the Hmong, but if we pretend like it doesn't exist, the problem will never go away.
- theres gangs everywhere. im sure it would be better to mention it in a gang related wiki. otherwise we would be repeating gang lifestyle drug use/sale on every ethnic page from hispanics to asians to native americans. --Gtfourdreams 06:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you Gtfourdreams, but what was said in the previous statement is also correct. I've heard all the stereotypes, especially about the gangs - how the Hmong youth seem to be more involved in them. From what I have also seen, it is correct. That is something that would be interesting to add to this article as it helps with awareness. 220.127.116.11 23:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)JPW
- I'm not saying we have to go into detail and describe the "gang lifestyle", but I think it should be acknowledged that the problem exists. This section of the article lists several other social problems that plague the Hmong community in the US. This problem, while definately not unique to the Hmong community, is just as relevent, has a major impact on urban Hmong youth and therfore, should be mentioned. Otherwise, this section is being selective and dishonest.
Wouldn´t it be a good idea to make distinctions between the different Vietnam wars? Since they´ve been in many wars during the 20th century? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 11 April 2006.
In addition to the gangs, how about some discussion of Hmong shamanism? They torture and sacrifice animals in some of their rituals, and sometimes even insist on having shamans present in hospital rooms where Hmong patients are being treated. Since these are important cultural practices, they really ought to be included. Godfrey Daniel 19:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- I would like to see a section on Hmong spiritual beliefs/shamanism as well. I have asked for somebody knowledgeable to begin one at Hmong Customs and Culture, too. By the way, I believe they do sacrifice animals (usually chickens, occasionally pigs), but I believe it is more for divination and spirit offering than for ritual sacrifice. Also, from my talks with Hmong people here in California, it seems to be done humanely; much the same as a farmer would slaughter one of his chickens for a meal.--WilliamThweatt 06:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism by user 22.214.171.124
It seems that user 126.96.36.199 insists on continuing to vandalise this article (see article history page for his comments that I won't dignify by repeating here). Is there something that can be done about this user?--WilliamThweatt 04:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Would be great to have a map showing the region these people live in; seeing that they are found in five nations, it is somewhat difficult to picture without an illustration. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I've added an IPA pronunciation for the word "Hmong." I'm using Merriam Webster Online as a reference and have converted MWO notation to IPA. This corroborates personal colloquial knowledge. This is useful because I find most Americans who are unaware of Hmong communities will pronounce the word something like /hə mɔŋ/ or even /hə mub/ based on phonetic interpretation. --Larry 00:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Ladies and gentlemen, don't stress yourself. Just pronounce it as "Mong," one of the two acceptable terms used to refer to this group of people. The "H" in front of the word "H'mong" is silent when pronounced.
They live mainly in...
With reference to Hmong in China, "They live mainly in southern China, in the provinces of Guizhou, Hunan, Yunnan, and Hubei" recently became "They live mainly in southern China, in the provinces of Guizhou, Hunan, Yunnan, Sichuan, Guangxi, Hainan, Guangdong,Hubei and elsewhere in China." I suspect that the edit mostly reflects someone ignoring the word "mainly", but I don't know much about the topic at hand, so I'm bringing this up here rather than revert. - Jmabel | Talk 05:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Why was the following removed from the article?
A significant population of H'mong still follow a traditional lifestyle in North Western Vietnam. The start of mass tourism to these regions in the 1990s has introduced many H'mong to western lifestyles, and the traditional dress of the H'mong people is gradually disappearing.
Hmong vs. Mong
I appreciate the recent edits to make the language more inclusive of both Hmong Der and Mong Leng. However, there are some reasons to maintain the current terminology (although, "Mong" should be in this article in certain places. In particular, when discussing SE Asia outside of China and the diasporic community.) In America, the Hmong/Mong issue is very important since Der and Leng are the two major dialects spoken and historically, Mong Leng has been given less attention. However, the recent edits seem to suggest that these were the only two groups in the world, which the rest of the article demonstrates is not true. Thus, I removed the edits to the first paragraph which included too much detail and lacked references. I don't believe anyone knows for sure which dialect is older, but Wang Fushi's comparative study of roots for the word (1979) suggest that the aspiration is the older form (even when the vowel is different). [See Ratliff "Meaningful Tone," 1992, p. 15-20 for more info.] In this instance, it may be more representative of the global community.
At the same time, this article is confusing enough constantly confusing both Miao and Hmong. The addition of Mong to the current article only confuses the situation beyond what it is. Perhaps it can be better accomodated in a future version of the article (one hopefully actually about Hmong people and not about the entire Miao nationality as defined by the Chinese government (which includes lots of people who don't speak Hmong-Mien/Miao-Yao languages and exludes many who do).)--Nposs 01:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying the above but, as a Mong Leng, I respectfully disagree with the current edits. If you want to be inclusive, you also need to include "Mong" as one of the names (at least in the introduction since we don't have a universal spelling yet) when refering to this group of people, or unless you make a clear notation that you were only referring to Hmong Der and Chinese Miao. As it stands, it assumes that these are the only valid terms, which is grossly inaccurate.
As you correctly stated, Hmong Der and Mong Leng are the two major dialects spoken and historically, Mong Leng has been given less attention, and yet your current edit does exactly that--to exclude Mong Leng again. This is a world encycopedia and it is seen worldwide; thus, care must be taken to include everyone fairly. Otherwise, don't do it at all.
To include "Hmong" and "Miao" and exclude "Mong" is to say that that there are only Hmong Der and Miao, and no Mong Leng. The fact is most of the Mong in China are Mong Leng, and we know this through the way they speak. "Miao" is a word given to the Mong by the Chinese. When you go there and introduce yourself as Mong or Hmong, the Chinese Mong answer the same way back; they never say they are "Miao," unless off course, they're talking to a Chinese individual or a differnt ethnic other than Mong.
In terms of which dialect is older, there's really no proof because Mong have no written record; however, most Hmong Der (even today) say or agree that their ancestors were one time Mong Leng. That's an admission that has been around for generations.
As of now, the intro is not acceptable to Mong Leng because it creates a bias or misconception that only Hmong Der or Chinese Miao exists. If you are concern that people might get confused by the different terms, I suggest you include a section within the page to explain the differences in the spellings about Hmong, Miao, and Mong.
Thank you for listening, and I look forward to the addition or change to reflect the three groups involved. --Tomx 01:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the best solution would be to create a new "Miao" article. Then this article could be retitled "Hmong/Mong" or something similar. Leng and Der are only two of several language/culture groups within the "Hmong/Mong" group and we really need better documentation of these variants. I'm putting together some sources that might help clarify the situation. There is at least some linguistic evidence that the aspirated form is older, but I agree that it does not necessarily mean that entire group should be referred to as "Hmong."--Nposs 17:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
That's a good suggestion; however, like you can't separate "Mong" from "Hmong" and "Miao," you shouldn't separate "Miao" either. Each of these names came to be not because we wanted them to be different but because they are what they are. Even if you create a different page for "Miao," you will still need to link it back to Mong or Hmong in order to be inclusive. As I've suggested above, I think the best way is to write a section within the page to explain about the three names (each with its own unique spellings but still referring to the same group of people). Following that, if you still want to use "Hmong" to explain the rest of the pages, you may do so but with a clear notation that this is a Hmong Der term so other people don't think that this is the official term used to represent all my people worldwide. And while we are discussing and until a fair way is found to represent all the groups, I'm adding the term "Mong" back to the introduction. Wikipedia.org has misrepresented Mong Leng far too long (whether intended or not), and it's time that this is corrected. Mong Leng are similar but not identical to Hmong. This is why we have our own dialect. We are not an invisible group as it was protrayed. Dr. Gary Yia Lee, a Hmong Der anthropologist, who uses mostly "Hmong" in his writings but also uses "Mong" when referring to Mong Leng (see paragraph 9th of http://members.ozemail.com.au/~yeulee/Topical/cultural%20identity%20in%20post-modern%20society.html) --Tomx 04:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It's easy for us to change back and forth in Wikipedia.org between "Mong" and "Hmong/Miao." But unless you're a Mong Leng or Hmong Der, you may or may not know that the "Hmong/Mong" issue is one of the most sensitive issues in our communities in the United States. This is why care must be taken when writing about the groups.--Tomx 14:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree both Hmong and Mong should be in the opening paragraph, but I fear switching from Hmong to Mong in different sections of the article will only confuse people who do not understand these finely pointed issues of language and culture. Miao can be separated from Hmong/Mong because it has a very precise definition as put forth by the government of China in designating ethnic minorities in the southwest. This new article would have plenty of references to Hmong/Mong, including the important information that this term is considered derrogatory by many people in the world. I'm putting together several references and hope to split the two articles soon. You can read and keep track of these references here: http://www.writely.com/Edit.aspx?tab=publish&docid=ddrsr9gd_19fms8g9&cancelRevision=ddrsr9gd_19fms8g9:107 --Nposs 16:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't link to the reference you made above even after registering for writely.com. Anyway, did you make the changes to the current edit? I don't know who did it. I was hoping to contribute a section within the "Hmong people" page to explain the different names/terms used and leave the rest as is. --Tomx 03:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't make any edits to this page yet, I just added the Miao people page with some new information. Sorry for the link trouble. I've uploaded the content to this page so any can read the notes I'm working from: http://www.writely.com/View.aspx?docid=ddrsr9gd_19fms8g9. All of these sources help to clarify distinctions between Hmong/Mong and Miao.--Nposs 04:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The article is quite extensive. I've only read the first section of it then scammed through the rest. I found the mini-sections to be informative but inconclusive. These scholars were mostly non-Mong except Yang; wether it's Yang Dao or Kao-ly Yang, both of these individuals are Hmong Der and known to oppose the use/recognition of the word "Mong" or "Mong Leng." This explains why Yang never mentioned these terms in the writing; rather, s/he lumped all "Mong Leng" into "Hmong" or "Hmong Der" as though we are one and the same. Yes, we are Mong but not the same as White Hmong or Hmong Der.
One thing that is sure is that most of the Mong Leng who live in Southeast Asia today and in the West called ourselves "Mong Leng." "Green Hmong," from what I was told which I'm not sure if it's true, is a term given to Mong Leng by Hmong Der, a term derived from the words "Mong Njua" (meaning Mong Blue). Until there's a Mong Leng scharlor rising up to write our history, the truth about "Mong Leng" will never be accurately known or described.
In deed, there's so many groups in China today which also claim they are Mong but don't speak the way we do anymore. In fact, some of these people don't even look like Mong Americans based on some videos I saw which was produced by hmongabc.com. Yes, this article will help to explain some of the terms but it's not one that has answer for everything. Thank you for sharing though. ----Tomx 07:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
If any of you people who are smart should know that there is no difference between Hmong. If I ask you what is your nationality? You would tell me your Hmong. I have never in my life seen anyone who told me they were Hmong and tell me they were also Hmong Leng. It makes no difference on how you speak because we as a whole should understand each other and not be segregated. It's just like saying that southern speaking white people are from united states and northern white people who don't have that accents are from England for their perfect speech or vice versa. Anyone saying that Hmong Leng has a different dialogue is just totally stupid and should go learn why we Hmong people are not united and always gets bossed around is because of you people who are stupid. Cantonese and Mandarin Chinese is similar to Hmong Dawb and Hmong Leng. Do we consider them both different or are they still Chinese. See that word CHINESE. Also last word of hope and advice for the high ups who want to segregate Hmong people. If you ever hear our history from a old grandpa or grandma they never say anything like we Hmong Leng was this and that and we Hmong Dawb was this and that. They tell you a wonderful story of our people united and having a country of our owned and was driven out. The dialogue crap is because some moron who think they have a MB,BA in bull-crapping wants to have a name for him/herself by making crap up and trying to make a difference.
Major problems in several sections of the article
This article is at best confusing and at worst misleading in several sections. Despite numerous revisions, there is no end to the problems in sight. Perhaps much of this has to do with the conflation of Hmong and Miao and the multiple uses of each term. I propose that there should be an independent "Miao" article describing the official ethnic group of the Chinese state (which consists of more ethnic groups than just Hmong/Mong). The Hmong article should remain specific to Hmong/Mong groups outside of China and those Miao who use the H/M ethnonym or at least speak far-Western Hmongic. A discussion of how Hmong relates to Miao would be apropos, but right now, the curent article provides many statistics for "Hmong" that really only apply to the entire "Miao" group. Then the history of the term Miao could be transfered to that article, making this already too long article more manageable. Other major problems that need to be addressed:
1) The nomenclature section is copied almost verbatim from TYPN (http://www.peopleteams.org/miao/MiaoHmong.htm). This seems like plagarism to me and plagarism of a very mediocre source.
2) The demographics section is entirely about the Miao group as defined by the Chinese government. It makes no sense to just replace Miao with Hmong in this case because not all of the ethnic groups in the Miao 'nationality' speak Hmong or self-identify as Hmong.
3) The early history section seems largely drawn on Quincy (History of People) without proper citation. Furthermore, as I noted below, these ideas have largely been refuted and Quincy himself provides no references in support of these ideas. The references to cold in the funeral ceremony are actually based on mistranslations (I'll try to find the citation later.) This wild speculation has no place in an encyclopedic entry.
4) The rest of the history applies only to the Miao category. Prior to the 18th-century, the usage of this term was so inconsistent it is almost impossible to say that Hmong people were included in it. If anything, it needs to be moved to a separate Miao article with a mention that Hmong people might have been included in this term. [I feel bad raising so many issues without providing proper solutions. I continue to think about these issues and hope to contribute more when I can.]--Nposs 01:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
New Miao people page
I've taken the current Hmong people page as a template for a new Miao people page (as has been discussed previously.) I've added comments to the talk page over there about my changes to the content. It is now time to revamp this page, making it more focused and specific to Hmong people and their history (which is of course significantly intertwined with Miao history.) I suggest removing the references on this page that are only relevant to the Miao group as a whole (that is to say: Miao population data, geographic distribution, pictures of non-Hmong/Mong people, etc.). We also need to add sections about the Hmong in Thailand and Vietnam (Burma/Myanmar, too [I think Dr. Kao-ly Yang might know about this.]) I would also argue for the removal of the Miao history since the inconsistent usage of the term in early Chinese history makes it difficult to say for sure if it relates to Hmong people or not. It currently maintained intact on the new Miao people page. I look forward to the contributions and improvements to come.--Nposs 07:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Why are we repeating "Hmong/Mong" so many times in the article? Normally, we give an alternate spelling once, usually in the lead, then consistently use the most common spelling (which I'm quite confident would be "Hmong") throughout the rest of the article. Am I missing something here, or is this just someone's personal crusade? - Jmabel | Talk 03:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmong/Mong is not just an alternate spelling for Hmong. I've added a new section to the Nomenclature: Controversy section that attempts to clarfiy the situation while maintaining some neutrality. Even in "Hmong" studies there has been a recent movement towards more inclusive language and it seems a violation of that neutrality to choose either "Hmong" or "Mong" for the body of the article. You may have noticed in the history that recently all references to "Hmong" were changed to "Mong," a reflection of this ongoing debate. "Hmong" may still be more common (especially in journalism), but this has much to do with the preference for this term stretching back to the late 1970s and does not necessarily reflect the current state of affairs. "Hmong/Mong" may be unwiedly, but it both more common (and more sensical) than other proposed inclusive terms (e.g. Mhong, (H)mong, HMong, etc.)--Nposs 03:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd even suggest that we change the title of the article to "Hmong and Mong people" or "Hmong/Mong people".--Nposs 04:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I like the new revisions on the "Hmong and Mong" section. I think it is clearer now than before. I also think the title should be changed to "Hmong/Mong people" to truely reflect the facts. I also would like to add that most Mong Leng have and still believe in the use of the word "Hmong" to be an inclusive term; however, the word or definition itself might be "inclusive" but the actions of those who use it are not. This is why every funding sources for schools and government in the United States are only geared towards Hmong Der and almost non-existent for Mong Leng. This is why after supporting Hmong Der for the past 30 years for the so called inclusive "Hmong" term, Mong Leng finally have had enough of the abuses and decided to stand up for themselves. However, this is not to suggest that "Mong" is a new term. Although the word is spoken in the dialect for generations, the written form was only created in 1953 when Dr. William Smalley, Dr. Linwood Barney, and Father Yves Bertrais created the writing system to translate the Bible for the two groups. Thus, "Mong" is Mong Leng's word in which they use, then or now, to refer to themselves and all other Mong people in the world. --Tomx 04:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
This is just plain crazy. There should be two different articles, if the peoples are so different; or an inclusive term should be found. Hmong/Mong is ugly and unpractical. Leandro GFC Dutra 20:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Currently, much of the population information only makes sense in reference to the Miao nationality of China. I'd like to drastically overhaul the data on this page to refer more speficially to Hmong and Mong people. Lemoine has a good article in a recent edition of the Hmong Studies Journal that summaries much of the current (global) population data. The current demographic information is (and would be) maintained on the Miao people page.--Nposs 04:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-11.pdf suggests that the Hmong count includes biracial people. A note should be made of this when totalling up. as it leads to some inflation of figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The word "Moob"
When I did a search using the word "Moob," this is what I got: "This page has been deleted, and protected to prevent re-creation."
"Moob," as written in the native dialect, is the name and language of the "Mong" or "Mong Leng" people. Can one of the administrators here help to point this word to "Mong" or "Hmong" as a search result? Thanks in advance--Tomx 03:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC).
Material moved to Hmong American page
Some major additions to the Hmong/Mong in America section were made by user 184.108.40.206. They were great additions, but I feel they belong on the Hmong American page for a couple of reasons. 1) This article is too long as it is and its focus should be on the global Hmong/Mong community. 2) This information really helps to fill out the Hmong American page which was lacking in content before. Now that it has been moved. The Hmong American page requires some editing to make it more concise. I'll post some suggestions over there.Nposs 03:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to reiterate: I think the additions are great. It's just that they really belong on the Hmong American page, not on the Hmong/Mong people page. I didn't delete them, I simply moved them. It is a level of detail that that greatly improves the Hmong American page. If it is left on this page, it makes an already too long article even less manageable.Nposs 03:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I have revised the history section on the basis of criticisms discussed above. The former "Early History" section was based largely on Quincy (History of a People), the flaws of which has been repeatedly demonstrated. The rest of the history section was basically about the 'Miao' and this detailed information is maintained on the new Miao people page. This information was well written but it lacked any references and often times asserted facts that cannot be proved. My current revision is much shorter and certainly conservative, and I'm sure can be greatly improved. If contributors want to include more history drawn from Hmong/Mong oral tradition, I believe it should be properly designated as such and not given as historical fact. Nposs 05:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Demographics renamed Population
I've replaced the Miao demographic data with the most current information about Hmong population. (The Miao information is retained on the Miao people page.) Since there really isn't any demographic information in the section, I've renamed it Population - although perhaps there is a better term for it. I've tried to be thorough without giving too much detail. The links provided offer the opportunity for interested people to satisfy their curiosity. I've also updated the population data in the template at the top of the page.Nposs 06:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I am assuming the population (10-12 million) mentioned on the Miao page includes Hmong people as well, whereas the population (4-5 million) listed on the Hmong page excludes all non "Hmong"?
There is also some inconsistencies on both pages under the section "Regions with significant populations."
On the Miao page, the populations listed are as follows: Vietnam 575,000, Laos 65,000, France 10,000, Thailand 160,000, French Guiana 3,000. However, the populations listed on the Hmong page differs: Vietnam 790,000, Laos 320,000, France 15,000, Thailand 150,000, French Guiana 1,500.
There is significant inconsistencies in these numbers and I feel that this section should be readdressed.
Kira Lynn 09:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that there is no data on the number "Miao" people outside of China since it is an official, encompassing term for a variety of ethnicities within the nation. That is to say, outside of China, the subgroups are more likely to identify by their own ethnonyms. This would include the A Hmao, Hmu, and Kho Xiong -- which may or may not have significant populations outside of China. It might be best to remove the inconsistent numbers (which are a hold out from the previous Hmong/Miao article) and make a note of the situation (although I don't have a source off the top of my head to verify this.) Nposs 14:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I have moved the newly add "Hmong flag" here for further discussion. I find no evidence of any sort of approval of this flag by any Hmong/Mong groups anywhere in the world. Please provide some references for its provenance. I would also argue that it is inappropriate to designate it as the "Flag of the Hmong People" since, as is clearly demonstrated in the article, Hmong people are a diverse and international community. Nposs 17:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Comments on Hmong marriage practices
Stevethao has proposed the following paragraph be added to the article:
"One particular problem which still occurs is the arrangement of marriages of girls as young as 14 to older men. The girls so not have a say on this arrangement, and any resistance is dealt with harshly, as in physical and mental abuse. Divorce is not a option as they are socially shunned and are made to feel guilt for being bad females. Local government turn a blind eye and ignore the plight of these girls in order not to upset community leaders."
I am moving it here for further discussion before it is added again (since there is a minor edit war going on.) For such a controversial statement, it is really necessary to have a reliable source for verification. Even if a reliable source was found to back up this statement, the language is too general and it would have to be made more specific. In particular, it would be best to have some sort of statistical information. As for the photo, Brenda Song is a notable Hmong-American and it makes more sense for her photo to be in the article. (Actually, there are enough photos already and it would make more sense just to have Song's picture on the Hmong-American article.) Nposs 14:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Recent edits - definition of Miao and Savina
An editor has requested that a recent addition be discussed. At issue are two assertions: 1) Miao means "raw" in Chinese. 2) That Savina "discovered" the Hmong and that "Hmong" came into usage as a reference for the group at that time. So, one at a time:
1) Miao means "sprout" in Chinese, not "raw." Definition from an online Chinese dictionary. The editor appears to be confusing "raw and cooked Miao" with Miao itself. From Culas, Christian and Jean Michaud. "A Contribution to the Study of Hmong (Miao)." In: Hmong/Miao in Asia. Ed. Nicholas Tapp, et al. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books, 2004: 63.: "Chinese texts often distinguish between shu Miao, or "cooked Miao," and sheng Miao, or "raw Miao," that is "sinicized" or "subdued," and "culturally independent" or "unsubdued Miao respectively." See also, "The Thousand-Year Myth: Construction and Characterization of Hmong" by Mai Na M. Lee, Hmong Studies Journal, Vol 2, No. 1, 1997 p. 11: "In China, there were Hmong who willingly integrated into the mainstream when offered the opportunity, and there were hard independents who may have had good reasons not to assimilate. The Chinese distinguished the "raw Miao" from the "cooked Miao."
2) While Savina did have contact with Hmong people in the early 20th century, it is inaccurate to suggest that "By the 1970s, it became standard to refer to the entire ethnic group as "Hmong," the term developed for the group when they were discovered by the French priest and scholar Savina and their romanized alphabet was developed." (the italicized material being those words added by the editor.) RPA was developed in the early 1950s, not 1970s (see the article for Romanized Popular Alphabet). The term Hmong had been used by Hmong people long before Savina ever came into contact with ("discovered" is not correct). It was recorded in writing by authors prior to Savina: Bonifacy (1904), Lunet de Lajonquiere (1904, 1906), and Clarke (1911). (See referenced Culas/Machaud article from above for more details.
Taking a look at the paper that was linked by the editor as a reference, I see that it uses Quincy as a source for some of this material. As is described in several places (on this page even), Quincy's book has largely been discredited as a source of reliable information and it must be used as a reference with great caution. Suggested reading on the problems with Quincy's work: "The Myth of Sonom, the Hmong King" by Robert Entenmann, Hmong Studies Journal, Vol 6, 2005 and "The State of Hmong Studies". Nicholas Tapp. In: Hmong/Miao in Asia. Ed. Nicholas Tapp, et al. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books, 2004: see pages 18-20 in particular for a thorough discussion of several of the numerous inaccuracies in the book.) Nposs 04:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is sufficient to satisfy me of your reversions to the article. Your scholarship on the matter seems sensible to defer unto and I readily profess I am a layperson on the matter having neither extensively nor formally studied it. The only caution I would add is against the rejection of the term discovered. While it may be so that another figure than Savina was the first to -as you write- "come into contact" with the Hmong, it is correct to say that they were discovered at that time in the sense that their existence was made apparent to Western civilization and they were, correspondingly, introduced to it. Thank you for your efforts. 220.127.116.11 05:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for discussing it. To clarify, I am not under the impression that Savina was the first Westerner to come in contact with the Hmong people. I don't know the chronology of his mission, but I don't believe he published until 1924, well after Hmong people had been documented in Western writing. Nposs 21:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I was wondering if someone could have a look at this section, of the origin belief article. For one thing, does anyone know if the creation story presented there is accurate, also is it common to both the Hmong Der and Mong Leng? Finally it needs to be condensed a bit, can anyone point me to a decent reference for the story. cheers. ornis (t) 07:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- The general outline of this story is retold in many sources. The version on that page is very similar to one reproduced in a series of Hmong literacy pamphlets. A longer version is also recorded in "Myths, Legends and Folk Tales from the Hmong of Laos" (Johnson and Yang). Not sure if it is common to both White and Green H/Mong. Nposs 18:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll see if my library has that. ornis (t) 00:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is worth noting that Graham recorded the story in "Songs and Stories of the 'Chuan Miao" (p. 179) as part of the Hmong origin stories he collected in the 1930s in the south of China. It would suggest that the story is quite old and widespread (since it was known to the Hmong of China.) A pdf of the Graham's entire book: http://www.reninc.org/BOOKSHELF/Songs%20and%20Stories.pdf Nposs 02:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll see if my library has that. ornis (t) 00:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Info about HR 5234
A recent editor added this to the repatriation section. Since it does not have to do with repatriation specifically, I've moved it here. Perhaps it is best suited for the Hmong American article? It seems to have too much detail for the Hmong American section in this article.
"In addition, on November 1, 2000, President Clinton signed into law H.R. 5234 to extend to certain spouses of deceased Hmong veterans the Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act of 2000, a proposal Clinton had legalized earlier in May of 2000. This original bill eased naturalization requirements to become American citizens , and was sponsored by Representative George Radanovich (R-CA), with seven co-sponsors: four Democrat U.S. Representatives (two from CA, one from RI, and one from MN) and three Republican U.S. Representatives (all from CA)." Nposs 21:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Recently some information about this was added to the Hmong-American section, removed, then re-added in an improved format. I would argue, however, that the information is controversial, not well referenced, and at any rate, probably doesn't belong in this section. Bride capture was widely practiced by Hmong in Laos and elsewhere (and perhaps still is) and a discussion of it based on reputable sources certainly belongs in the Hmong culture article. However, I can find no discussion of bride capture in the United States in either scholarly journals or newspaper articles (not to say that it isn't out there - maybe others have better sources. I did try Lexis Nexis and other search engines.). The reference that is currently used is a single paragraph in a 20 year old newspaper article. It also contains some factual errors about the practice, suggesting that it isn't totally reliable. (For example, compare with the description in this paper that summarizes some other sources.) That isn't to suggest that bride capture never occurred in the United States (or that it potentially doesn't happen today). It's a rather sweeping allegation to make, however, and it needs to be backed up with multiple reputable sources. Nposs 12:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have a few comments. Firstly, your choice of words indicates a sort of bias (we all have bias...it's unavoidable and it's not necesarily a bad thing since we need editors with different points of view to maintain balance). You use words like "allegation" and "controversial" which indicate you believe this subject reflects negatively on the Hmong. This is an encylopedia and therefore is meant to be descriptive in nature, not prescriptive or judgemental. The fact is that this does occur in the Hmong culture. It's not a negative or a positive...it's just a fact. A description of fact in an encyclopedia should not be referred to as an allegation. Secondly, it is sourced by a reputable investigative journalist. That is sufficient for its inclusion. Your opinion of the reliability of the source is insufficient for deletion. If you have other sources that refute this source than their view (properly cited, of course) can be included as well, but you can't delete the entire sourced paragraph simply because you don't agree with it. Thirdly, this is a descriptive article of Hmong people specifically sub-sectioned "The Americas". If something occurs in the U.S. it can be included in the section. The fact that it also occurs elsewhere doesn't preclude it from being included in this section. That is a logical falacy on your part. Also, it is worthy of inclusion because it is a facet of Hmong cultural practices that is in conflict with U.S. law and causes problems in the American Hmong communities. I simply replaced the paragraph as the original anonymous editor had written it, inserting references where appropriate. This time I will rewrite it slightly to indicate the (presently) lone source and better describe the practice.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 15:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- On second thought, although I stand by all of my assertions above, this may not be the best place to discuss this aspect in detail. I will briefly mention it and take the discussion and facts to the Hmong culture page. I am also removing the paragraph on SUNDS until I can rewrite it. It is extremely inaccurate and based on folklore and anecdotal evidence, not science. The phenomenon is due to a genetic abnormality in the conductive tissue of the heart that is most common among the Southeast Asian population. The defect results in Long Q-T syndrome and multifocal PVCs (premature ventricular contractions) which predisposes the patient to fatal arrhythmias, espcecially Ventricular Tachycardia and subsequent Ventricular Fibrilation which quickly leads to cardiac arrest and death. Patients are most likely to go into arrhythmia when the heart is beating slower which is why death occurs most often during sleep. It is not due to "night terrors" and it is not most common among Hmong men in the US. The defective gene combination is relatively equally distributed among certain populations in Southeast Asia including Khmer, Thai, Lao, Hmong, Vietnamese and Native Taiwanese, among others. The most common occurrance is in the Northern Thai population. I have researched this in depth previously and will rewrite the paragraph soon with appopriate references.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 16:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate your thoughtful response and agree with much of what you say. I think moving it to the "culture" article is a good solution. Since the extent of the practice in the Americas is unknown, it seems inappropriate to devote much space to it in that section of the general article. As for the source being reputable, I find that much of the article is fine, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth evaluating the quality of the writing. For example, the author asserts that consummation takes place within three days. The source I linked suggest that immediate consummation was discouraged. This suggests that the author could be writing from a narrow point of view or might not have all of the facts. While I tend to the trust the author of the newspaper article in question here, I am bothered by the consistent use of generalities: "some", "many", "majoritiy." How do we know if it is a majority if we are given no statistics? Even the case mentioned that went to trial ended in acquittal. The best we can conclude from the source is: 20 years ago it was thought that instances of bride capture sometimes occurred in the United States. This is a rather weak statement, but something along these lines might be appropriate in the context of a larger discussion about the history of Hmong bride capture elsewhere. Thanks for your help with the SUNDS information. I know there has been some more recent research on the phenomenon, but its outside of my area of expertise. Nposs 20:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see the deletion vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Taiwanese Americans. Badagnani 02:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I've undone some recent changes and wanted to explain my reasoning beyond the edit summary. The changes included: removing the phrase "whose homeland was originally" (in China), adding "in response to encroaching Chinese," and the addition of the fact tag to the statement that theories of Mongolian origin have been discredited. So here are my reasons:
- The origin of Hmong people in the has been established through a variety of sources: linguistic evidence, DNA evidence, as well as oral history. This information places them in China for at least the last 2,500 years (not including the legendary history of the Miao which is recorded in Chinese texts). Prior to this time, one has to ask, what people are we talking about? That is to say, people who today are identified as Hmong developed in terms of language and culture within China. For a more thorough discussion of various origin myths and their rather modern origins, Nicholas Tapp sums it up best in his article "The State of Hmong Studies," in Hmong/Miao in Asia (2004) pp. 15-19 especially.
- As for "in response to encroaching Chinese": Hmong people migrated out of China for a variety of reasons. At first, many families moved in search of new farming opportunities, later people were forced out as a result of military conflicts, some of which involved the Miao, others which did not. These "rebellions" seemed to have more to do with politics (taxes and representation in government) than simply Chinese people (Han, I take that to mean) moving into their land. At any rate, the situation is more complex than encroachment and inserting it the opening paragraph seems to support ongoing stereotypes about of Hmong domination and resistance. For more details, see "A Contribution to the study of Hmong (Miao) migrations and history" by Culas and Michaud in Hmong/Miao in Asia (2004) pp. 61 to 86 (which includes a comprehensive discussion about the early migration of Hmong out of China in the 18th century.)
- As for the fact tag, there are two references immediately below the sentence in question which would demonstrate rather empirically that Hmong people did not develop genetically or linguistically anywhere else but China. Nposs 04:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- I will concede to your points on the phrase "in response to encroaching Chinese". Although your "arguement" concerning the "ongoing stereotypes of Hmong domination..." is pure "politically correct" nonsense, politcal pressure was not the only reason for the continuing southerly migration of the Hmong, but it was the dominant factor. However, I agree that this discussion is too complex to be covered in one phrase. As for the theories of Hmong origins, surely you must agree that a few studies that disagree with previous conclusions does not discredit those conclusions. Any researcher worth his salt will realize that research is an ongoing process and concerning the ancient past we can know nothing for certain. One genetic study may reveal that Hmong have had contact with Caucasians of Central Asia, indicating a more northern origin while another study may conclude that the language currently spoken by the Hmong people may have developed in southern China. One study does not discredit or disprove the other. The various studies merely come to different conclusions, or disagree with each other. As an academic, for you to stand on one's conclusions while ignoring the other's is dishonest and amounts to POV-pushing. All legitimate academic theories must be presented and treated equally, whether you like the conclusions or not. I am making changes to present a more NPOV article.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 23:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- My problem with the "encroachment" language was the vagueness of what encroachment meant in that context. Physical encroachment? Cultural? Political? I would also suggest that it is not "politcally correct nonsense" to suggest that Hmong people in many respects continue to be defined (and sometimes define themselves) using the characterizations based on a history of colonial domination. (Mai Na Lee, Gary Yia Lee, Nicholas Tapp, and Louisa Schein have written extensively on the subject). As for the origin theories, to my knowledge there are no reputable sources that suggest Hmong people originated in "Mesopotamia, Siberia, or Mongolia." All three appear to have been developed in the 20th century, for the most part by Europeans who encountered Hmnong people in SE Asia. The Mesopotamia theory is linked to Savina who thought that since some Hmong people had light skin, they must be Caucasian (supported by a flood myth in their folklore). The Siberia theory comes from a mistranslation of the funeral ritual which seem to suggest that the ancestral homeland was a place of ice and snow. The Mongolia theory is a mid-20th century mistake based on the similarity between "Hmong" and "Mong-" in word Mongolia. I encourage you to read the Tapp article cited (I can e-mail you a copy if you can't access it). I am also happy to provide other sources, some of which are available online. I'm not "ignoring" the conclusions of others. These "conclusions" are neologisms that have taken root in oral history and received wisdom. If anything, the non-Chinese origins should be moved to another paragraph and discussed in this context rather than mentioned first without noting where the ideas come from. Nposs 15:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I just found a good summary of the non-Chinese origin theories (where they were developed and the research that proves them wrong) written up by Dr. Mark Pfeifer of the Hmong Cultural and Resource Center: Overview of Recent Scholarship on Premodern Hmong History. It also has a good bibliography of relevant sources. Also, a clip of Dr. Gary Yia Lee discussing Hmong oral tradition and how it supports the Chinese origin theory. Nposs 16:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a change of substance (adding Rhode Island in the midst of the list of states with largest Hmong populations) without adding a new citation. I'm in a hurry now, no time to check, but someone should check on this and revert if there is no citation to bear it out. - Jmabel | Talk 03:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The bottom line is, who care what the Chinese, or the rest of the world call us. As long as We know that HMONG, that’s good enough. Do we call the Laos people, LAOS? No. Do we call the Chinese people Chinese? NO. Do we call the American, American? NO. So who care what they call us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This article is well organized, reads naturally, is fairly easy to follow the complexity of the different linguistic/ethnic groups, and is well cited. Have not verified content accuracy, but this article is on its way to being a Good Article, if not a Featured Article -- good job editors! παράδοξος (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry to say this, but no, it isn't. This article has many problems, the least of which is the poor use of the Enlgish language. I have tried to make some improvements (see the article's edit history) but it needs much more attention. See Talk:Hmong people/Comments for a list of some of the more obvious problems with this article.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 23:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this section could be edited to make it more concise. The information in the section is swamped by links to places, if the most important were kept and the least important were removed, this would help in the cleanup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:EL and WP:SEH show external links need to be cut down. But how do we know here what sources are reliable. particularly the geocities link, that doesn't appear to be a source other that an amateur with a rweal keen interest. Lihaas (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your concern for the external links on this article which had clearly gotten out of hand. You seem to think that the link to Dr. Kao-Ly Yang's website is inappropriate because it is not a reliable source and that the author is simply an amateur. Dr. Yang is not an amatuer, but rather a Hmong anthropologist who has published several important articles. She is also co-editing a new anthology of scholarly articles about Hmong Americans. She has been on the faculty of California State University, Fresno. Her website is a unique resource and features a variety of articles as well as photos and artwork. Yes, she uses geocities as a platform for her website, but that doesn't diminish the quality or quantity of the content (I even used it as a reference when re-writing the Hmong People article itself - see ref number 6). You can learn about her many accomplishments (on her website) here: http://www.geocities.com/kaoly_y/KaolyintheNet.html. I think it is one of the better resources on the internet for information about Hmong culture and history and is worth keeping. Nposs (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Is there a link to her UC-Fresno info? There's not way to ascertain the reliability of geocities. unless, of course, its corroborated elsewhere.
- Also the fact-finding.org link is only indirectly related to this in that the veterans happened to be hmong. this is not the page about the hmong war of hmong veterans. (WP:EL) Lihaas (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed the Factfinding.org link. It was more appropriate to the Conflict in Laos involving the Hmong article where it was already linked. I added that article to the See Also section. I would encourage you to take the time to read the page I linked which includes Dr. Yang's CV. I am not sure that she is still teaching at Fresno (which may be why she doesn't appear in their directory anymore). But there is no question about her record of scholarship. She has published in both French and English scholarly publications including the Hmong Studies Journal and the recent anthology Hmong/Miao in Asia. I understand that you have reservations about linking to a geocities website, but I don't believe there is any doubt about Dr. Yang's credentials or the quality of the content on her website. Nposs (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: the addition of a link to GaryYiaLee.com. You claim that I should not have added it while this discussion is ongoing, but I'm somewhat confused. I was under the impression you started this discussion to talk about Dr. Yang's website only. Yes, the external links needed to be cut down, but certainly 4 external links would still put this article in the minority in terms of how many external links there are. Dr. Lee's website was linked for several years without question and there certainly is no issue of "reliability" with it. Dr. Lee is one of the most widely published Hmong scholars writing today and his website is unique in breadth and depth of the subjects covered. Yes, Dr. Lee's and Dr. Yang's websites are both "personal websites," but they are both recognized authorities and contain scholarly articles, not unverifiable opinion pieces. These are the best Hmong studies websites on the Internet, each with its own emphasis. I don't find that these links violate WP:EL in terms of reliability, the "personal website" clause, or any other reason. Nposs (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- We're still coming to agreement on this.
- There are already enough resource pages on the external links that there will be overlap. Certainly the odd-content that is newly added can be cited. Lihaas (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm unclear as to what you are suggesting. Are you suggesting because there is some overlap in content between Dr. Yang and Dr. Lee's sites that neither should be linked? Or are you suggesting that they do not pass the reliability test because they are personal websites? In the first case, I would argue that they have sufficiently different content to warrant the inclusion of both. Dr. Yang's site has articles about gender, family, age, and children in Hmong culture. She also has a variety of photographs and traditional verbal arts like riddles and proverbs. Dr. Lee's site focuses on the history and culture of the Hmong diaspora with an emphasis on the U.S., Laos, and Thailand. As for reliability, they are both recognized Hmong sutdies scholars who have published in journals and books. Dr. Lee just finished up as a visiting scholar-in-residence at Concordia University and was previously a fellow in anthropology at the Australian National University. Is there any question that the records of both of these scholars that would suggest they don't constitute reliable sources? There are already enough resource pages on the external links -- yes, I agree, but what is lacking are links directly to website with rich content on a broad variety of topics (consistent with the broad subject of this article). Four unique, high quality links are not excessive for the external link section of such an article. Nposs (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
There has been no reason offered to exclude Dr. Lee's website from the external link section. Being that it is one of the best Hmong studies websites on the web, I think it should be linked. I've re-added it, but invite further comments on its inclusion. Nposs (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's more important, then, to identify the scholar than the content. Readers expect it to be an attribution of the content, that generally goes without saying. Lihaas (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Glad I'm not the only one that noticed. It's rather confusing and should definitely be explained in the article or removed from the images. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there a real need for the popular culture section? Obviously the new clint eastwood movie is going to attract some editors to this wiki who know little about the hmong people other then what was seen in the movie. --188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
What the Hmong Taught The Chinese
For i am Hmong, my grandparents have told me many stories of the Hmong history. My grandparents said that it is us, the Hmong people, who taught the Chinese how to plant rice. We also told them the art of kung fu. The only reason why the Hmong don't practicd Kung Fu andmore and is not the main distributer of rice, is because we were banished from civilization and were force to move to the mountains because we were a threat to them, knowing to much. There has also been so studies done to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- good BS..
= Burmese Name for the Hmong
The Burmese-language name on the main page, "mun lumyo" is incorrect. This confuses the Mon, speakers of an Austro-Asiatic/Mon-Khmer language, who live in Lower Burma and Central Thailand, with the Hmong. As far as I know, the correct Burmese name for Hmong is "hmyaung" although only people living in areas where Hmong live seem to know it. Kalaphyu (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
biased secret war
"In the early 1960s, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) Special Activities Division began to recruit, train and lead the indigenous Hmong people in Laos to join fighting the Vietnam War, named as a Special Guerrilla Unit led by General Vang Pao" er... well actually the French started this secret war 7 years earlier, the US applied the same methods as the French, Vang Pao started as a French GCMA lieutenant (SDECE intelligence service Special Force). archive video of Mèo (2000 Mèo & Laotian partisans under Touby Ly Phoung joins Sassi and his commissioned officers - more join them later) can be watched here. colonel Jean Sassi was a friend of the Mèo spiritual leader Touby Ly Phoung who was caught by the viet minh and died in a camp. Cliché Online (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- As I read in Anne Fadiman's book, though, few Hmong were involved when the French were fighting. When the Americans came, though, over 90% of the Hmong were involved. I can get page numbers if you want. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Meneses, Rashaan. "Hmong: An Endangered People." UCLA International Institute. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Lee, Mai Na M. "The Thousand-Year Myth: Construction and Characterization of Hmong." Hmong Studies Journal. v2n2. Northern hemisphere Spring 1998.
Hmong Daw Wikipedia ready to accept contributions
The Hmong Daw Wikipedia is ready to accept contributions, as per meta:Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Hmong_Daw WhisperToMe (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, just came here to read about who the Hmong people were, stumbled on something awkward - the phrase "Flower Hmong" is used in the images three times, but there is no reference to who a "Flower Hmong" is in the text. That would be helpful for understanding... 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ugh sorry. Apparently there are dozens of Hmong subgroups anmed after the color of their traditional garments. Flower Hmongs are one of them. I don't have the time to research further now though. If anyone can, please see if I unintentionally duplicated a subgroup (the naming seem to vary a lot). Thanks.--Obsidi♠nSoul 04:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmong in Cambodia
The reference sited for the 1700 Hmong in cambodia. That reference is misunderstood by the editor. That 1700 refers to the Montagnards, that is not synonymous with the Hmong. That is another group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- I removed it again. One of the references is a link that no longer works and there is no information on what might have been there. The other was a newspaper article which reference the Montangards, which is a different group from the Hmong. If someone can find good sources, it can be restored.
File:Vangpao.png Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:Vangpao.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
|A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.|
- Fadiman, Anne. The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 1997. 165. says (my paraphrasing):
Van Binai was the largest Hmong settlement in history (it was larger than Long Tieng. It got refugees until the early 1990s. In 1986 it had 42,858 residents; 90% were Hmong, and that was the peak of its population. Fadiman said that it was a "large-scale charitable institution" that continued to erode Hmong self-sufficiency that had been eroded since the rice drops. She said it was either a "catastrophic deracination" or... Pages 165-166 "a useful dress rehearsal for life in the American inner cities to which many of its inhabitants would ultimately relocate." Page 166: Van Binai had no running water, electricity, or sewage disposal. Due to the population density, Fadiman said that it was "in effect, urban."
A possible source
By Father Jean Mottin "History of the Hmong" written in Khek Noi, a Hmong village in
Translated into English by an Irish nun -
Vang Pao in the community leaders section
The Community Leaders section lists "General Vang Pao (recognized as the leader of U.S.-based Hmong)", even though other parts of the article note that he has died. Not knowing much about the American Hmong community myself, I don't know how that should be rephrased -- perhaps "long-time leader of U.S.-based Hmong"? Or just drop the parenthetical comment? Or, if the section is intended to list only current community leaders, perhaps he should be removed from the list altogether. Jdrum00 (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Hmong clans origins
Photo File: H'Mong (novembre 2011) (10) "Red Hmong of Vietnam"
The photo file H'Mong (novembre 2011) (10) on this page states that it is of the "Red Hmong of Vietnam", however this is incorrect. The photo is of the Red Dzao (Yao/Mien) people of Vietnam. Please consider the removal of this photo.
Oddly enough on this article nor on most articles about pretty much any ethnic group can I find images/pictures/photo's of male H'mông in their traditional garments, if this article should have a good article status it should probably be more inclusive, maybe it's just a thing about global photographers that they're more fascinated with female clothes, or that males from literally every ethnic group in the entire globes are universally shy or something, but this article should probably have to have more traditional male H'mông clothing, to date I have no idea how they look like, and I've been a regular on this page for over half a decade now. Sincerely, --22.214.171.124 (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)