Talk:Hmong people

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".

BC

Does anyone have a source to indicate whether the recent anonymous change of 26th century BC to 6th century BC is a correction or vandalism? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:43, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

So we're looking for an accurate date for a legendary battle? ;) According to [1], 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.

HmongLady

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)

Nomenclature

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.

Language?

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)

Heroin

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)

Edgar Buell

I wonder if anyone who frequents this article and is knowledgeable about the Hmong might be willing to expand the Edgar Buell article? Gazpacho 20:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Long Cheng

Why does someone keep delinking Long Cheng (without comment)? It's a place and should eventually have an article. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:52, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Chai Vang

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 -- [2] -- 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)

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 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 71.35.125.183 (talk • contribs) 27 August 2006.

Do you have a citation for this statement? - Jmabel | Talk 05:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Quincy, Keith. Hmong: History of a People. Washington: Eastern Washington University Press, 1988. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.35.125.183 (talk • contribs) 28 August 2006.

Cool. Page number would be helpful as well. And would someone who is more actively working on this like to try working it into the article? - Jmabel | Talk 05:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Recently removed

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 203.120.68.68, 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."

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 03:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

---

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

Nomenclature paragraph

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: [3]. Mark¹ 15:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmong Funerals

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)

Internal Consistency

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 67.160.30.127 (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.

Celebrities

"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

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. 75.26.55.102 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 83.226.84.52 (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 69.5.132.225

It seems that user 69.5.132.225 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)

Map

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)

Pronunciation

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)

Vietnam

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.

Jmabel | Talk 05:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Hmong/Mong

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)

Demographics/Population

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)

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).

I'll do it. - Jmabel | Talk 06:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Material moved to Hmong American page

Some major additions to the Hmong/Mong in America section were made by user 129.89.246.133. 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)

Editing History

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)

Hmong flag

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)

what happened to that picture of brenda song? she was bangin.

Comments on Hmong marriage practices

Stevethao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 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. 67.101.243.74 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)

Origin belief#Hmong

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)

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 [4], 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).[5]" Nposs 21:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)