linguoboy wrote:Salmoneus wrote:It turns out: Britain really is the exception. There are way more Vietnamese migrants in the Czech Republic than in Britain! Poland, too. It's weird, because in general Britain has huge East Asian populations, and there are obvious migration routes from Vietnam to Britain (via Hong Kong or Malaysia/Singapore). Were they all avoiding Britain for some reason? What was drawing them all to Central Europe, I wonder?
Hans-Werner explained that: Communist solidarity. The same reason so many Africans and Indians ended up studying in Moscow instead of someplace with colonial ties.
OK. Though your analogy is a little flawed, as vastly more Africans and Indians moved to the UK than ever moved to the USSR.
Salmoneus wrote:Common misconception. It's true that our colonisation attempts (from the early 18th century onward) were small-scale and unsuccesful - we certainly never attempted a colonisation on the scale you tried!
India was "small scale"?
As Hans-Werner says, I was obviously talking specifically about our countries' relative involvement in Vietnam specifically. Although I guess India was small-scale compared to British colonisation of Africa...
Salmoneus wrote:Yes, I'd heard that about the Hmong especially.
With the Hmong specifically, a concerted effort was made to spread them out across the country so that they wouldn't form ethnic enclaves. It was only partly successful: One of the locations chosen, St Paul, Minnesota, is now home to half of all the Hmong in the USA. (It was probably a combination of the generous state social services and the relatively central location that encouraged them to consolidate there, since it sure as hell wasn't the climate.)
Yeah, I was reading about the Hmong in Minnesota not long ago, though I can't remember why. Although I thought there were more in California?
Yeah, looking it up, there's 260,000 Hmong Americans, of whom around 90,000 live in California, and just over 60,000 live in Minnesota, with under 30,000 actually in St Paul. Although maybe it's different if you were talkign specifically abotu first-generation?
Salmoneus wrote:My local chinese restaurant is run by Malaysian chinese. More interestingly, I once lived somewhere where the local chinese was "Hakka" - i.e. migrants from the Mumbai Chinatown. Which I hadn't previously even been aware of...
I don't understand what the "i.e." is doing there. Mumbai's Chinatown was founded by migrants from Guangdong. One of the remaining native place association buildings is named See Yup Goon, which indicates that many came from the
Four Counties which were also the source of much early migration to the USA. (At one point, something like 40% of the Chinese in California could trace their origins to just one of the Four Counties, Taishan/Toisan.) There were certainly Hakka communities in the Four Counties, so presumably some settled in Mazgaon as well, but the majority were Cantonese-speakers (locally known as "
Punti").
"Hakka" in the context of Chinese restaurants in the west generally refers to the cuisine the refugees who fled Mumbai and Kolkata in the 1960s. Chinese in India spoke many languages, but generally identified as "Hakka", probably because Hakka were the earliest major wave of migration to india, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. I was indeed surprised - this restaurant had helpful information about 'the Hakka' on its menus, talking about the Hakka culture and the worldwide community of Hakka, with absolutely no reference to the Hakka of China, in the normal sense of the word. Apparently Hakka cuisine in the Indian sense is not particularly associated with traditional Hakka cuisine in the Chinese sense - the word has simply been repurposed.
[see the wikipedia articles on 'chinese people in india' or 'hakka cuisine' (subsection 'hakka cuisine in india') and particularly "Indian Chinese cuisine" for independent confirmation that i'm not just talking nonsense. The "Indian Chinese cuisine" article literally begins: "Indo-Chinese cuisine, or 'Hakka Chinese', is..."]
And actually, looking it up, I was wrong: the specific restaurant I knew is the Kolkata version, though there are also Mumbai and Kolkata-Mumbai fusion versions in London. [then again, the one I knew is now "under new management", so it may be that a mumbai family has been replaced by a kolkata family. I did think it was mumbai...]
Anyway: if you go to somewhere advertising itself as "Hakka" in the UK, expecting to find the cuisine of the Hakka ethnic group in China, you will be sorely disappointed. Here, it's a synonym for Indo-Chinese, specifically from the established indo-chinese communities of Kolkata and Mumbai, which claim (rightly or wrongly) descent from Hakka migrants to India.