Comparing Asian Nationalities | Asian American Poll

COMPARING ASIAN NATIONALITIES
(Updated Wednesday, Jan 22, 2025, 06:39:09 AM to reflect the 100 most recent valid responses.)

CONTACT US | ADVERTISING INFO

© 1996-2013 Asian Media Group Inc
No part of the contents of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission.

WHAT YOU SAY

[This page is closed to new input. --Ed.]

4)Racial Mixing between Korea and China/Korean DNA tests/Japan Genome Project/other ramblings:

(I Ching:

I didn't know what to make of your posts when I read them. Hahaha.
Yes, I did actually find many of your points to be very funny, even humorous.
Maybe it's my age (please I'm not that old)...
Thanks for giving me good laughs. I needed that.

Well, in the end I've decided to stop arguing with people like you -- this is my macho/hot-tempered Korean side talking;

Ignorant/young/inexperienced people are one thing, you know. I think they can be educated/changed.

However, people with high intelligence/great knowledge -- although many of your arguments/reasoning are false and in dire need of being corrected. Indeed... -- who have extremely narrow-minded/ prejudiced/biased/ one-sided view of their own surroundings/ who should know/ act better are a wholly different matter -- regardless of their age/educational background.
Through my personal experiences/contacts with both type of people (A LOT more with the latter type), I've learned that it's best not to bother although I still do get irritated and frustrated/internally suffer from time to time.

Is that good enough/Do I sound masculine enough?

BTW, it is us shameless Koreans -- not the Japanese -- who like to asssociate ourselves with them barbaric Mongols, Turks, Manchus, even Hungarians/Estonians/Finnish.
Hey, Japanese people are on their own, you know.
Don't you know that the origin of Japanese people is still unproven/shrouded in great mystery -- along with their language although numerous theories abound as you mentioned just one of 'em??
Please don't insult Japanese posters/lurkers by associating them with us Koreans...

Anyway, ain't it ironic that there actually exist a few Korean scholars who just can't stand the association with Japanese, and consequently like to claim that Korean language is most closely relted to Ainu lanugage??

There are ultra nationlistic/bigoted/irrational individuals among all of us regardless of nationalities...

Yes, I do have a great respect for peasants -- after all, in order to be civilized/culturally sophisticated, one had to be a peasant first -- but I'm afraid much of Korean heritage is deeply rooted in Altaic/"barbaric" origin...

Miyagi, Joy et al:

I sincerely thank Miyagi for expressing his regret for what Japanese imperial rulers/army had done to Koreans, Chinese, etc., during WWII.
I really didn't know what to think at first.
Well, if there are more Japanese people like Miyagi -- although you are guilty of not knowing many aspects of your own culture/Koreans -- especially among those in power, believe me, the relationship between Korea and Japan (and other Asian nations) will greatly improve.
We Koreans are very down-to-earth and friendly people -- unlike some posters who accuse us of being xenophobic/clannish, etc.
I'm afraid those posters don't really know about our true Korean characteristics at all.
Of course we are not perfect, and have many flaws/faults.
I happen to be one of the biggest critics of our own people -- yes, mainly because I dearly love my people/motherland...

Anyway, we Koreans easily forget/fight and forgive/reconcile.
And sometimes I greatly worry that we may appear too simple-minded to outsiders because of such personalities.
In the final analysis, I think it's too late/impossible now for the Japanese government to make any official apology/amends with their past wrongs.
They had their chance, but they royally blew it decades ago (let me also add that I know the reasons/arguments behind their rufusal)
Also, I'm afraid that Japanese will never ever "officially" learn the truth regarding their orign/roots, particularly regarding their relationship with ancient Korea/Koreans, e.g., imperial family/Yamato/etc., not to mention their medieval/modern relationship with Korea/Koreans.
It will never happen. Period.
I mean (I'll be blunt here), the ancient Koreans -- particularly those of Packje descent -- basically founded a country which later became known as Nippon/Japan...

I also wanna point out that along with other Korean(s) (scholars), I've been observing some "funny" reaction from those Japanese individuals who are "gracious enough" to acknowledge Korean influence on Japan;
they always try to greatly exaggerate/emphasize Chinese influence (yes, especially Tang Dynasty) on Japan while trying to conveniently bury Korean influence/minimize it to a bare minimum.
Personally, I really don't care -- although I know it better.
At least they do acknowledge "some" Korean influence unlike numerous ultra nationalistic bigots who totally deny it.
However, for the sake of history/future generations I do lament their short-sightedness/copping-out.
(well, to be fair, a few Korean people of antiquity/great fame were similarly guilty of aligning themselves with China/Chinese, or claiming Chinese ancestry to elevate their status -- among the barbaric Koreans -- while the historical evidences overwhelmingly show that their heritiage might have been actually 100% pure/barbaric Korean...)

As some poster already alluded to, I found the DNA tests done by 4 Korean geneticsts to be somewhat incomplete/inconclusive -- yet I'll have no real trouble agreeing to the results.
A sample size of about 450 Korean males is not really big enough, yet it's significant enough not to be ignored/taken lightly.
My biggest problem with the paper was that the researchers failed to specify what kind of Chinese males they did DNA tests on.
As someone already mentioned the Chinese are very very diversified group of people.
However, it's obvious that they were Northern Chinese males.
Then, generally-speaking, why do Koreans, Japanese and Northern Chinese seem to genetically cluster together as DNA test after DNA test seem to verify/confirm their close relationship?

Let's take a look at Chinese history for the past 2 millennia;

Roughly one half of it was dominated by the so-called Han Chinese.
The other half by foreign conquerors -- yes, the same barbaric Altaic people that Chinese people immensely despised/looked down upon.
Chinese people get really upset/sensitive about this topic, and I normally avoid bringing up the topic/discussion if I can help it.
After all, the city of Beijing was founded by the Khitans.
Oddly enough, "China" was also derived from Khitans(from a corrupted Russian word).
Just think about it for a second...

Need I mention again the prehistoric relationship(the monopolization) the Eastern barbarians ("Dong-yi" people as some poster already mentioned) had with Northern China/Manchuria/Siberia/ETC?
Don't you think at least some factions of these people did migrate southward into China Proper/intermingled when the ancestors of most of modern Koreans were just pouring into Korean peninsula??
Why do you think the Chinese built the Great Wall for?

Let's look at Qing dynasty for an example; China was conquered/ruled by the estimated 300,000 Manchus. 300,000 Manchus!
Just imagine how many Han Chinese people -- particularly the Northen Chinese -- might have some Manchu blood in them after 400 years of intermixing...
Same can be said for Khitans/Jurchens/Huns/Mongols(who were remotely related to the Dong-yi people)/etc/etc, yes even Koreans to a lesser extent...

Gene flow occurs through many forms and shapes.

When Goguryo kingdom fell to Shilla/Tang army,
the Chinese did everything they could to erase/put down every trace of Goguryo uprising/rebellion/resistance.
As one tactical move, the Chinese forcibly relocated about 28,000 Goguryo "households" (not persons) into China and elsewhere.
28,000 households mean a lot of people, particularly 1400 years ago, you know.
I suspect at least 100,000 Goguryo people became a target of this relocation project with at least half of them being taken to China proper.

Yes, a few of these Goguryo people actually fared/treated well by the Tang, and some of them even became very famous in Chinese history as the history books firmly attest.
However, the majority of people who were relocated to China, were scattered to all parts of China, and sufferd miserable lives as slaves/servants/hard laborers/etc.
That's ususally what happens during/after the war; the ruling class of subjugated nation, even though greatly humiliated, somehow find a way to survive as corroborators/political defectos/traitors to their own nation/etc.
The poor innocent civilians get slaughtered/maimed/raped/relegated to the status of slaves, etc.

Anyway, these Goguryo people that were taken to China, left some indelible imprints on overall Chinese gene make-up.
Just imagine how many modern Chinese people might have descended from at least 50,000 Goguryo people after 1400 years...

I've been told of a very interesting story (I have not been able to confirm this);
The British miserably failed to conquer Afghanistan, so did ancient Romans/Greeks, and even modern Russians.
However, the Chinese were successful in waging a military campaign into Afghanistan.
Guess who led this Chinese expedition?
A descendant of political refugees/defectors from the direct lineage of the famous Goguryo general, yes, Uljimunduk.
Yes, the blood of Uljimunduk is flowing in the veins of Chinese people now...

If you really understand in full scope what trully happened to Goguryo and Paekje/their people (Yes, later on they founded Palhae and may I dare say, Japan?), you won't really blame North Korean scholars who strongly condemn Shilla's alliance with Tang as a treasonous act against its own people/nation -- yes, Shilla accomplished some great things...

Also a lot of gene flow took place in later wars, particularly during so-called "The Imjin war" between all three East Asian nations...

I found the stanford research a whole lot more convincing. It was well-done -- for most part.
You know, the Chinese -- particularly the Southern Chinese -- just can't accept the fact that Koreans(Japanese too) are a part of Altaic race.
Why can't the Chinese realize that they themselves became greatly Ataicized during the past 2000 years??

I was greatly disappointed when I found out that Korea(South) didn't participate in the Human Genome Project.
Instead we get all these independant DNA tests/reseraches done by a few ambitious individuals that don't really tell the whole story, you know.

On the other hand, the Japan Genome Project I mentioned in one of my previous posts is a comprehensive/conclusive study.
The Japanese ministry of education employed about 100 scientists, over many years, testing thousands and thousands of Japanese people from all parts of Japan (yes, as Joy said, there are certain parts of Japan whose DNA is closest to Koreans'),
exchanging DNA data with several Korean university professors and others(over many years).
Will the Japanese government publish the results? No...

In concluding, I can cautiously agree that Koreans and Northern Chinese are closest genetically.
Korean peninsula currently boasts about 70 million people.
Then just imagine all the people -- close relatives of Korean people -- that had lived in Northern or Northeastern China/Manchuria/etc. -- several times larger than Korean peninsual in size -- for thousands of years, who have been completely assimilated into general populous of the Chinese, particularly in Northern China for the past 2 thousand years.
How many people do you think have descended from these so-called Eastern Barbarians/Dong-yi and now call themselves Chinese?
Your guess is as good as mine.
Don't you think at least a few hundred million Chinese people have descended from these raiding/conquering Dong-yi people??
No wonder why Koreans and Northen Chinese seem to share same fathers.

As late as 14th century, Koreans had a very close relationship with Jurchens.
A few Korean historians actually suspect King Yi Sung-Gye -- the founder of Chosun dynasty -- having some Jurchen blood in him.
Before King Yi Sung-gye became the 1st king of Chosun Dynasty, his Korean ancestors had lived among Jurchens for 5 generations, and were very friendly with them.
One of the most trusted/loyal generals of Yi Sung-Gye was of Jurchen extraction.
There are many descendants of this Jurchen general living in modern Korea today.

From Japanese point of view, Koreans are their closest relatives.
I think there's no argument regarding this kinship.

However, Chinese people are a diversified group of people, as we all know.
That's the reason why I said that Koreans and Japanese are genetically the closest to each other when looking at the whole scenario/picture.

Southern Chinese connection to Koreans? You better believe it.
A lot of people came to Korea from Southern parts of China...Lots and lots...

Southern Chinese connection to Japanese? Sure.
But, not as much as Japanese like to believe when compared to Koreans...

Well, those people of Southern Chinese descent (particularly from Taiwan, HK, Singapore)-- who are now very active in academia/internet sites -- don't like to admit the huge huge influence the Altaic people/Dong-yi had on their genetics/culture/etc., especially on their northern brothers.

You can easily understand their "psychosis"...

The communist China/North Korea?
Haha....They could care less IMO. Actually, what the communist regime most fears is the uncovering of the truth regarding some vital parts of their ancient history. But more importantly, North Korea/China don't have financial resources to actively pursue in fields of today's cutting-edge high-tech academia...

One Korean Man Thursday, June 20, 2002 at 09:27:15 (PDT)

What about these?

'Archaeologists unearth settlement mentioned in Wei Chronicle'
http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news221.htm

'Tawayama find hints kanji introduced in Yayoi Period'
http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news270.htm

'Chinese may have gone to Americas 3,000 years ago'
http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news141.htm (Nahhh, most likely these Shang "Chinese" gave up and decided to settle in Japan. LOL!)

Peking Man Thursday, June 20, 2002 at 01:47:11 (PDT)

"The Japanese people are a mixture of southern non-Han proto-Chinese, Jomon, and Australoid-type peoples. Like modern southern Chinese, the Japanese people are rice and fish eaters, whereas northern Mongoloids are not."

Hahaha. So the Japanese are partially Cantonese afterall. Indeed both are small people. Hahaha. And the Jomons and Ainus must have been an extremely polite and quiet people. Hahahaha. Just kidding.

Hoklo Taiwanese Wednesday, June 19, 2002 at 23:57:59 (PDT)

I think this dicussion is madness, as each group is trying to prove or disprove something. Well, there is no fact as solid as a rock.

It's passe to see some people here trying to assert some strong statements about their culture/origin. But let's face it. Compare to Chinese civilisation, Japanese and Korean cultures are significantly late entries and have a smaller cultural sphere *in fact, they are subset of the Chinese one in a way, dont argue with me on that!). Now we see a very modernistic Japan and a modernising Korea, and it's no wonder these people are voicing out so loud, because they know their culture is gaining global attention.

But look at China, this civilisation has been around for 5000 years or more, having go through all the ups and downs, glory and misfortune, and still surviving, kicking and alive. We dont need to make so much noise now unlike our neighbours coz we have had in the past.

so guys, just with all these because they are new, and gotta make a statement for themselves.

C C C Wednesday, June 19, 2002 at 20:44:08 (PDT)

I Ching,

I agree.

It is comparable to the African-Americans claiming the ancient Egyptians and Moors to be their ancestors.

First of all, we don't know for sure what race the ancient Egyptians and Moors were? Most likely, they have always been as they are now (a mulatto race).

And, most of the lineage of African-Americans stem from West Africa (not North Africa as they claim).
let's confront the truth and realities Wednesday, June 19, 2002 at 18:05:34 (PDT)

so,

There were a lot of contact between the Kija Chosun kings of Korea and the neighboring Yen Chinese kingdom. It is fairly easy to say that the imperial and aristocrats of Kija Chosun were imports. Later, a Yen general easily accomodated himself with the Kija Chosun aristocrats who allowed him to guard the Yalu pass. Later, when some Chinese laborers were constructing the Great Wall, thousands of them fled into Korea. In Korean and Chinese history texts, it says Wiman welcomed these refugees with open arms and gave them new homes and land to settle in.

The Chinese played a big part in Korea's politics prior to the fall of Han Dynasty and establishment of Korean 3 kingdoms. The kingdoms of Koguryo itself was said to contain both native Korean and Chinese stocks. The Koguryo general Ulchi Mundok was said to be a man of high literature. He was so well versed that on many battles he wrote poems for the Chinese Sui emperor to read, imploring him to return the vast riches of the Middle Kingdom and not waste his efforts in a small kingdom (Koguryo). He also was a student of Sun Tzu's "Art of War." Could his ancestors have been some Han Chinese who settled in Lolang (Nakrang) colony?

Genetically, Koreans and Chinese have mixed since 1000 BCs.
Chinese, Japanese and Koreans all came from the same fathers Wednesday, June 19, 2002 at 17:56:52 (PDT)

You guys should not blame the Italian geneticist.

His claim was only the northern Chinese who had genetic markers shared with Middle Eastern Caucasoids (Iranians, Lebanese and Anatolian Turks). This is not unusual as even Chinese geneticists claim that 1/10th of the mtDNA in northern China (esp. those to northwest parts) is of Caucasoid (ie West Asian) extraction.

At one time, in northern China had lived Iranian peoples (such as Yueh-chih, Wu-sun, Tocharians, Kushan, etc.) Many of them were absorbed and interbred peacefully as no weapons or burned artifacts were found among their graves. Some of them actually began to wear Chinese clothing in later burials (during contact with Han Dynasty). This is one component of Caucasoid mixture in northern China.

Then, during the Tang Dynasty a major flood of Iranian immigrants came via Persia and Sogdia (Central Asia). They fled their homelands when the Arab Muslims conquered their lands, confiscated it and forced people to convert to Islam.

The Iranians and Sogdians were so prevalent in Tang China that there were certain districts that had their own judges and laws. These were found not only in northern China, but also along the southeastern coastal cities. By the end of Song Dynasty, no more mention is made of these Persians and Sogdians. They assimilated and amalgamated into the Han ethnos. It is apparent that the Han Chinese (both north and south) have eye shapes that look more Caucasoid than either northern Asians (Altaics) and southern Asians (Malays). The head shape (mesoliphic) and low, straight eyebrows also seem like influences from West Asia.

I have seen many Han Chinese who look more like the Uigurs than they do either Japanese or Koreans. Uigurs and Han Chinese are mainly Mongoloids, but you do detect a West Asian substratum in them. Even genetic tests prove it.
Asian Races Wednesday, June 19, 2002 at 15:51:52 (PDT)

tri,

Siberians and Baikal Mongols my have remained closer to the roots of mankind. East Asians had some additional mutationsin their specific East Asian evolution.Khmer must also have remained relatively close to the proto-Asian type.
rare stuff Wednesday, June 19, 2002 at 15:26:08 (PDT)

Viets and even Cambodians are close to Northern Asians? How could it be possible? just look at how they look entirely different from Mongols and Siberian.
Distance Wednesday, June 19, 2002 at 15:22:53 (PDT)

I Ching,

perhaps you should admit that Japanese and South Koreans at least don't live in a matriarchy today. One social progress at least.
objection Wednesday, June 19, 2002 at 15:14:57 (PDT)

To, k;

Thanks for the link. My vietnamese friends will be extatic to see some genetic research done on the vietnamese population, or one very close to it. I see that the source refers to the Yueh people, the vietnamese are supposed to be descendents to the Yueh, or atleast the most notable or purest (not 100% pure but as close as you can get is what i mean) of the Yueh descendents, with us southern chinese a far off second with extensive Han influence. If anyone has any links to a valid or interesting genetic research project please post it up.
Thanks.
Chinese Guy Wednesday, June 19, 2002 at 14:44:56 (PDT)

To, k;

Interesting site you've put up, do you have more? The origins of the vietnamese is VERY vague and unclear. Chinese historians put us as the direct/purest of the Yueh descendents, but archaelogists have put us as the descendents of the people of the Red River Delta. Through bone structure and new and old archaelogical finds they concluded or hypothesized that the modern vietnamese are descendents of the people of the Red River delta. The Red River Delta theory seems to be A LOT more accurate. Think about it a bit here, the people of the Red River Delta has been around since 21,000 BC as a civilization or tribe, and with agriculture since 14,000 BC. The Yueh is around 600 to 500 BC. But what is amazing is that the Yueh were recorded to have funny feet, which is welly described by confucious himself. Feet that supposedly given the Yueh an edge in battle when defeating the Wu (who had Sun Tzu or a descendent of his on their side), which in my opinion, is a pretty bad conclusion or guess. But the people of the Red River Delta was ALSO found to have funny feet! As described by the ancient chinese scholars. The archaelogical finds found that the people of the Red River Delta had a bit more of a spaced out feet with a second two longer then the first one (one closest to the center of the body, you know the big one), which again was supposed to have been an advantage in battle.

From this i can or will conclude that the two groups have once been one. Or atleast related to a limited degree. But since the Red River Delta people were around first, it is only logic that the people of Yueh originated or broke off of the people of the Red River Delta. From this if it is true north vietnam, or phu to to be exact, was the original homeland of the Yueh but they once again moved south to their original homeland after migrating south to avoid assimilation. BUT the people of the Red River Delta was fairly advanced and populated, some say they had a fair bit of influence to the tibetan culture (doubtful, but isn't so doubtful though). This once again be concluded that after the Yueh migrated south their history was NEVER once again recorded (except for the little tribes that stayed, i'm talking about the people who stayed loyal and moved by the numbers to remain unassimilated), so it can easily be a fact that the chinese have mistaken our identity. Or the similarities could have made a confusion, or that the Yueh just simply assimilated into the more populated and advanced, at that time, civilization. The Red River Delta was said to have trade with many partners. The genes which is redistributed across china (probably small) of which have relations to the modern vietnamese could be of those shared by the Red River Delta's people and the Yueh, and the similarities of the modern vietnamese and the southern chinese set by the, at that time, influential and common ancestor the people of the Red River Delta.

From this the genetic similarities can be concluded to have been pasted down by the common ancestor the people of the Red River Delta who was influential and also gave birth to the other influential body we know as the Yueh's. So yes, from this i don't see why there would be no influence as the influence is inevitable. Similarities set by the common ancestor, the people of the Delta or the Yueh, differences set by the difference which is probably the Han. Because even during chinese rule the poeple that intervened were more of the southerners to the original blood couldn't have strayed off so far or not at all fromt he original blood.
General Viet Wednesday, June 19, 2002 at 14:41:52 (PDT)

So far on this board, there are some experts who know very well historical, cultural links between Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese etc�

In search for people identity, can anyone tell me who is more Chinese influences: Koreans or Vietnamese?

Why do you think that way? No bias please. Prove it with the facts.

Want to know Wednesday, June 19, 2002 at 13:13:41 (PDT)

I Ching,
What the hell is your problem with koreans and japanese?. Why don't you come and send me to the rice paddies if you have guts, which I bet you don't. U fu..$%&$#%@..ng loser.
kc Wednesday, June 19, 2002 at 11:26:08 (PDT)

"......I have no further comment other than many groups of hispanic people are very similar to the Cantonese (and to the Japanese) since, according to your logic, they have been greatly "westernized" as well."

First of all, both the Cantonese and Japanese come from Confucian traditions. 2) Hispanics never adapted to Western trends, instead Westernization were mostly forced by their oppressors. This the big difference.

"But those in southern Fujian can somewhat understand Taiwanese Min-nan."

Southern Fujian is where the Hokkiens originated. Some ventured into Guangdong, Taiwan and Southeast Asia. Perhaps the Minnan dialects in the Guangdong area were influenced by other dialects causing them to change significantly. There is much more dialectal diversity in Guangdong than in Taiwan. For example, in the Shenzhen/New Territories HK area, you find people who speak Cantonese, several varieties of Hakka, Chiu Chou, and Cantonized Hokkien. Above the Shenzhen area, you find people who speak a Cantonese dialect that sounds like Hakka with many words originating from the Hokkien dialect.

Changing topics....I'm sure you know all too well that there is distrust and disliking between the Cantonese and Taiwanese in America. Much of it has to do with educational and cultural perspectives, and the Taiwanese-Inferiority-Superiority complex towards Mainlanders.
Cantonese-Taiwanese conflict Wednesday, June 19, 2002 at 11:25:08 (PDT)

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS