Asian American Attitudes toward Height | Asian American Poll

AA ATTITUDE TOWARD HEIGHT
(Updated Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008, 04:14:59 PM to reflect the 100 most recent valid responses.)

Assuming you are an Asian American, how important is height in your assessment of a person's attractiveness?
It's a key element of attractiveness. | 20%
It's one of many factors I consider. | 44%
It's less important than other personal qualities. | 28%
I am not attracted to tall people. | 8%

Assuming you are an Asian American, which best matches your feelings toward your own height?
I'd like to be 3 inches taller. | 43%
I'd like to be an inch taller. | 27%
I'm happy with my height. | 26%
I'd like to be an inch shorter. | 4%

This poll is closed to new input.
Comments posted during the past year remain available for browsing.

CONTACT US | ADVERTISING INFO

© 1996-2010 GoldSea
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.]

I have another piece of advice about growing taller. Do NOT buy any of those books or programs that claim you can grow up to 3 inches. I know a 5'6" Korean guy who bought a book like that for $50 several years ago. For several months, he followed the program - did all the streching exercises, slept in a supine position, ate protein foods. After several months, guess what? Absolutely no increase in height.

In the end, the final conclusions for growing taller were: wear clothing with vertical stripes, keep a good posture when standing, and ... wear high heel or elevator shoes.

He never bought those elevator shoes, but he's not afraid to tell everyone to beware of scams that prey on our height conscious society.

BTW, he's now married to a 5'1" Korean women.
B. Lee Saturday, January 26, 2002 at 07:22:00 (PST)

Qiren, Get the Fact Straight:

-- Of course there have been Japanese who immigrated to Korea, but it was never significant, and it was far more prevalent the other way around (Korea to Japan). So to invoke the Hideyoshi wars for any decrease in Korean size is misleading.

-- Northern China is where the two peoples intermingled, so of course, not all Northern Chinese are Tungusic.

My response was to the person who implied that somehow "Northern Chinese" were taller than Koreans, and thereby contributed to its height during the Chinese military presence in the peninsula. But the Han chinese are not known for being relatively tall, as the northern Tungusics are. Koreans are tungusic -- so in that respect, there is little distinction between the Northern Chinese (the tungusic part) so-called, and Koreans.

-- The Liatung region is not traditional "Han" Chinese, just as Beijing is not traditional "Han" Chinese. These areas were the homelands of the various tungusic groups, including Koreans. Korea's history didn't start in the peninsula, but in Manchuria and the Liaotung regions. But did these areas come to eventually become a part of greater "China"? Yes. But greater China -- not just "Han" China (actually, China was never pure "Han" so-called, but a combination of steppe and agricultural peoples. There is arguably no such thing as pure "Han".).

Remember that "China" is more an empire than a nation-state, composed of various ethnicities and united more by culture than blood, with a past whose rulers have often been "foreign" in origin.

"China" and "Chinese" are rather ambigous terms, because they include peoples, cultures and states that were arguably not necessarily "Chinese", but later eventually became a part of the larger "Chinese" identity.

MK Friday, January 25, 2002 at 17:01:23 (PST)

MK,

There were some Japanese soldiers who remained in Korea (the southern parts) after the Imjin Wars. They had already married Korean women and took up farming. They later became Chosun citizens.

Not all Northern Chinese are of the Tunguz stock. Only the ones in Beijing and Shandong. Many captured and deported Koreans from the fallen states of Koguryo and Paekche were resettled in these regions of China in the late 600 ADs. Likewise, many ancient Han Chinese had settled in historic Korea. Northeastern Chinese and Koreans have both Sino-Tibetan and Mongolian genetic strains. The Jurchen Manchus (Malgals) also had some infusion of Tang Chinese and Koguryo/Parhae blood. A real unmixed Mongol is short and thickly squat like Eskimos and Lapps.

Liaotung (now Liaoning) was always the region where Koreans and northern Han people met, settled and mixed. Even when the Manchus conquered it, they were vastly outnumbered by the native Chinese and Koreans there. Later, these Liaotung Chinese and Koreans became part of the Manchu ethnos and banner armies.
Qiren Thursday, January 24, 2002 at 18:45:41 (PST)

MK,

" there is "little" distinction between "Northern Chinese" so-called, and koreans -- they are both, broadly speaking, of Tungusic stock."

This is not true. Why do you think northern Chinese is of Tungustic stock as koreans are? Though there are some mixing and some people are of Tungustic origin, but that doesn't mean all northern Chinese are Tungustic. Actually, most northern Chinese are Han, which is not Tungustic.

"the Liaotung region is not traditional Han Chinese territory, but Korean/Manchurian."

This is wrong again. Historically, Liaotung belongs to China at least as far back as in Qin and Han danasty. At that time, the ancestors of Manchu hadn't entered the historical stage, perhaps still wandering around somewhere in Siberia. Liaotung was traditionally Chinese territory, definately not korean/manchurian.

Get the fact straight Thursday, January 24, 2002 at 14:15:04 (PST)

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS