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.]

To, Our Caveman ancestors were brothers. =P;

In some ways we're brothers, but skelletons in the Phu To dates back to 21 thousand bc...

No one is denying the brotherhood. Just that some people say that every other ethnic came from them, which is annoying and untrue because we all have equal claim to the ancestor, and also equal rights to identify ourselves.
Hafti Sunday, July 28, 2002 at 13:33:13 (PDT)

Too bahar ka mmanush hey. Aryavarta mey sub Arya hey too Mahabharta our Ramayan pad. Dekin key log be jada tar Aryan hey our purab key log be jada tak Aryan hey. Jai aryamatar Bharat, Jai Aryamatar Bharat ke eak ank Dravid.
Srinivasen Sunday, July 28, 2002 at 13:08:09 (PDT)

To, the traveller;

Not all of the Red River Delta peoples were considered to be of the Australo-Negroid group. From what i've read just recently only the Hoa Binh, Bac Son, Quynh Van and Minh Cam were found to have Australo-Negroid features. No mentioning of the Son Vi, Dong Dau, or even the Dong Son of having Australo-Negroid features on them. If so, then why rant on and on of the issue on how the modern viets don't look malayo-polynesian? Like i said, look at the muong, the group considered to be the purest of the dong son descendents. They don't have malayo-polynesian features. From this knowledge it can be concluded that the common belief that the dong son are descendents to the Hoa Binh as wrong. It is more logical to follow the lineage of Son Vi-> Dong Dau-> Dong Son-> Muong (present)... As those groups were described to have lacked australo-negroid features... The kinh and muong are said to be related, so there should be atleast a small percentage of Dong Son blood in us, the bone structure and skin color similarities are there.
Hafti Saturday, July 27, 2002 at 13:16:47 (PDT)

I really think East Indians and perhaps, Middle Easterners should be included as with us East Asians as one Asian label.

But, I have also met some Persians who can easily pass off as white and some Arabs who look somewhat mulatto.

Regarding Filipinos: clearly, their racial features is closer to East Asians than it is to Hispanics, but I have known many Filipinos/as who literally beg to be included among the Hispanic category. Some of them even want to affiliate themselves as black. I think they are very ambiguous at times. Is it self-hate? I don't know? Maybe it is also because the East Asians sometimes don't accept them as fully Asian?

Even the Mexicans: some of them can pass for Asian. My co-worker teacher (who is from Spain) would be nice to me (a Chinese man) but would be downright cruel and condescending towards her little Mexican students and their parents. For example, one time those kids came into the room with ketchup all over their shirts and the lady would look at them with disgust and tell them in Spanish: "How much of a pig they were." Kids know when you are being mean or not. I guess it is also because of racism?
United Asians Friday, July 26, 2002 at 22:43:23 (PDT)

How does every single discussion on comparing Asian races ends up into a prehistoric history lesson? What exactly are we trying to prove here?
Enter My Dragon Friday, July 26, 2002 at 20:22:36 (PDT)

To, dsfbcbsijbdax;

"Face it. All Asians (Koreans, Japanese, Vietnamese, Filipinos, Indonesians, Malaysians, Thais, Laosians, Singaporeans, Burmese, Hawaiians, Taiwanese, all Pacific Islanders, and Mongolians) are somewhat related to the Chinese, one way or another."

Actually most asians share a common ancestor, it's a misconception that people think the ancestor is chinese. In fact, the chinese are just another branch of this ancestor. The han, yueh, hmong and many more probably share common ancestry, but it's not right to say they come from one another. No one is denying that there is a relation, just the father and son relationship the chinese keep on talking about, it instead is more of a brother and sister, or brother and brother relationship. Even though after the making of the identification, the influences of the chinese was undeniable, it's just influence from a brother.
Go Korea! (i know it's too late, but keep up my smile!) arsenal@hotmail.com Friday, July 26, 2002 at 20:10:33 (PDT)

Hey, I was wondering... do people from different parts of Vietnam get sent to different cities in the US? If you look at San Jose Viets, they look quite different from say Sacramento or Fresno Viets.
TSJ Eric@KristinKreuk.net Friday, July 26, 2002 at 17:28:35 (PDT)

Yo….Chinese, Hafti

Kim is either Vietnamese first name or middle name NOT last name like Korean.
Like Chinese, Vietnamese last name goes first, middle name, then first name.
A Viet Friday, July 26, 2002 at 09:21:48 (PDT)

cool website
trez888 Friday, July 26, 2002 at 09:16:56 (PDT)

To Our Caveman ancestors were brothers.= P,

As you have pointed out, it is true that China, Korea, and Japan were connected together during the Ice Age. Nonetheless, your assumption that the end of the Ice Age caused the cavemen of China, Korea, and Japan to be separated and evolve differently to form modern day Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese is largely incorrect.

During and after the Ice Age, short and stocky Austronesian people occupied southern Korea and Japan for almost 10,000 years; remnants of them still exist even today. The Japanese and Korean languages still have an Austronesian imprint in their vocabulary and grammar. They resemble the round-eyed, flat-nosed islanders of Southeast Asia and Australian aborigines. They were great seafarers and ate raw fish but knew little of agriculture and were always starving for food as evidenced by their sparse population.

Then about three thousand years ago, a number of different more civilized people came from various regions of China arrived in massive numbers as migrants/refugees. They looked very different from the aborigines of Korea and Japan, being taller with eyes shaped like almonds. They altered the genetic makeup of both Korea and Japan. Amongst the most notable people were the Yayoi or Wu Chinese, from near Shanghai, China, who made Korea and Japan into advanced rice civilizations. Han Chinese introduced advanced metals and horses into Korea and Japan. Later, Mongols and Manchurians occupied Korea but failed to conquer Japan.

Japanese and Koreans were once short, round-eyed peoples. Japanese and Korean people only look like Chinese people only during the last 2,000 years because of the massive influx of Chinese-type genes. The process continues today with thousands of Chinese migrating to both South Korea and Japan each year as economic migrants. They have completely altered the history of Korea and Japan.
J Lee Friday, July 26, 2002 at 07:02:40 (PDT)

To dsfbcbsijbdax,

You have quite a handle! Your statement that all Asians are somewhat related to the Chinese is both correct and incorrect. It is incorrect because West Asians and South Asians did not originate from the Chinese, and neither did mainland Southeast Asians nor Austronesians, as they all predated the Mongoloid Chinese in origin by at least 20,000 years. The Mongoloid Chinese are primarily a small band of mainland Southeast Asians who migrated to the upper and lower reaches of the Yellow River in mainland China 20,000 to 40,000 years ago. The subgroup of Southeast Asians that migrated to the upper-middle Yellow River in mainland China (the real heartland of the northern Mongoloid type) had to change their diet to adapt to the colder climate and blinding loess windstorms that are still prevalent today all along the Yellow River and affect even Seoul. Presumably, they became much larger anatomically, lighter skinned, and more intelligent, while their eyes narrowed to keep out wind-blown loess, developing the ubiquitous epicanthic fold prevalent amongst northeast Asians. By 8,000 B.C., these Proto-Chinese people became the most advanced and capable people of East Asia and would one day expand into and dominate the lands that have long been settled thousands of years earlier by their fish-eating Austronesian-type cousins in Jomon Japan, Korea, Taiwan, southern coastal China, Indo-China, and beyond. This process still continues today as the Chinese migrate in big numbers to all of East Asia including Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Hawaii, and especially Siberia Russia. Nonetheless, your statement that all Asians are related to the Chinese is correct in the sense of what has been happening only within the last three thousand years as Chinese genes are being sown throughout Asia into the genes of primitive peoples. There is even evidence that Chinese genes reached the Americas and Africa long ago. http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/millennium/m3/kristof.html
J Lee Friday, July 26, 2002 at 07:01:08 (PDT)

To Creo,

Anyone race has the capability of adapting to another culture. It is a question of whether they want to or not. The most primitive peoples readily abandon their culture and adopt the culture of their new masters. In contrast, the most culturally advanced, i.e. the Chinese, the English, and the Americans, stubbornly refuse to give up their way of life, and are the people who advance their civilizations to others. Thus, adaptability is a question of will not race.
J Lee Friday, July 26, 2002 at 06:58:30 (PDT)

5)http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/ssuma2.html

6)
http://www.fcc.sophia.ac.jp/Faculty/Keally/Classes/StudyGuides/sg320.html

hm...those websites are by no means related to the 'Yueh are black' topic.
Hm... Thursday, July 25, 2002 at 23:17:53 (PDT)

Our Caveman ancestors were brothers,

ala Peking Man hominid.
we always know Thursday, July 25, 2002 at 22:30:44 (PDT)

All this talk of Cantonese being Viet and Yueh. Did you guys even know that the Cantonese have very well documented geneological records of family history passed on from one generation to another. Most of these records date from the early Song Dynasty.

Dr. Sun Yat-sen, for example, was able to trace his lineage to a Song Dynasty general in Henan.

I heard a lot of Toisan people tracing their geneology also can trace it mainly to Henan.
are geneologies fabricated or adopted from conquerors? Thursday, July 25, 2002 at 21:16:40 (PDT)

Although Guangdong and Guangxi were included in the maps of ancient Nam Yueh, it doesn't mean that the modern Cantonese can simply be called or considered the direct descendants of those Yueh tribes. Otherwise, they would be speaking Vietnamese today instead of Chinese.

If any of you have studied the population of Guangdong area during Tang Dynasty, you will find that during the rebellion of Huang Chao, a great mass slaughter took place in Guangdong province at that time. Most of the people living there at that time were Yueh along with some Persians and Arabs. After the massacre, the population dwindled dramatically.

Only in the later Song Dynasty did the Guangdong area start to pick up again in population increase. This can be due to migration of Chinese from Central plains and northwest due to the Tangut and Khitan invasions.

Of course, there is undoubtedly Yueh strains in most Cantonese (perhaps some Middle Eastern too). But, to say that the modern Cantonese is 100% Viet (Yueh) related is simple denial of history, language and culture. It is just like saying all Mexicans are 100% Aztec and Maya. We all know that most Mexicans are some form of Mextizo one way or the other (yes, they have some Spanish in them however limited). Just like the Cantonese have some Tang (northwest Han Chinese) strains in them however limited.
don't lie Thursday, July 25, 2002 at 21:13:56 (PDT)

North east Chinese from the provinces of Jilin, Liaoning, and Heilongjiang resemble Koreans more so than northern Chinese from provinces farther west including as western Hebei, Gansu, and Shanxi in such respects as concering facial features. Shandong and adjacent provinces along the east such as Jiangsu, on down in continuity with Zhejiang, share resemblences with one another. Jiangsu province has been partitioned indefinitely into Su Bei and Su Nan. Su Nan inhabitants (southern Jiangsu) resemble the people of Zhejiang more so than Su Bei people would. Ordinarily, they also share a similar dialect, that is commonly heard in the rural regions of the east that seperates the north from the south.
Ultimately, provinces in continuity will logically hold greater adherance to certain common traits than regions that are otherwise not adjacent. And in most instances, logic prevails with Liaoning resembling eastern Hebei, which resembles western Hebei, which resembles Shandong, which resembles Su bei and eastern Henan. However, in the end, Liaoning resembles neither Henan or Su Bei significantly when juxtaposed with Eastern Hebei (the nearest neighboring region) in appearance and certainly culture.

Seriously, Vietnam is really far away from Korea. The distance is nearly outstanding. The practicality that lies in claiming a significant common heritage is quite dismal. Albeit some aspects of culture may be shared only between the two, these similarities pale in contrast to the resemblence each shares with its nearest neighbor(s).

It's peculiar that Japanese script is closer to Chinese than Korean is. Spoken Japanese seems to share greater similarities to Korean than to Mandarin Chinese. Of course, there's history that explains this anomaly, where "common sense" becomes specious at best...just thought I'd bring this little topic up to show the exception.

On another note: Shandong, historically, has the tallest people in China. Suzhou has the most beautiful.
chinatown Thursday, July 25, 2002 at 21:02:10 (PDT)

To people interested;

The dong dau weren't of negroid classification, maybe the much believed theory of the dong son being of hoa binh ancestry is wrong! I bet that the dong son were actually descendents to the dong dau instead of the hoa binh, because of the obvious reasons of bone structures. The dong dau existed 16 thousand years ago just to let you know.
Hafti Thursday, July 25, 2002 at 19:10:36 (PDT)

To, the traveller;

"1)http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi184.htm

2)http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Bay/7051/DRAVIDIANS.html

3)
http://members.tripod.com/pointingbird/lostfeatherintl/id58.htm

4)http://members.tripod.com/pointingbird/lostfeatherintl/id59.htm"

ALL of those sites have VAGUE discriptions of the yueh. #3 and #4 talks about how the NORTH OF CHINA had a black chinese culture of shang. No revelence to the yueh. #1 has little reference to the yueh, only found one paragraph to the yueh, and it was talking about how a tribe was related to the yueh. THAT'S IT. I find #2, to be a weird reference, the yueh were considered black? WEIRD!

"http://www.bvom.com/resource/vn_history.asp?pContent=Pre-History"

This site though had many references to the people living in vietnam at those days, had little reference to the people who were considered the ancestors to the vietnamese. It is also outdated, recent escavations have found traces of agriculture as early as 14 thousand years ago during the hoa binh era and dong dau era as well. It refers to the things the people made, and less on the peoples origin. ALSO it left out the IMPORTANT new discoveries just made by scientists today. It also seems to be more editorial then fact, no references to sites of the escavations, nor the skeletons examined at all. More recent and concluded with older escavations gave mixed feelings if the skelletons belonged to the Australo-Negroid group or not, but that site didn't reveal ANY of that. They didn't reveal anything about the other sites of digging, from which the skelletons there were found to be of stunning bone similarity to the modern muong. The information seems to be outdated... Or atleast lacking some of the newer information.

Can you now give us revelent sources to our debate now please...
Hafti Thursday, July 25, 2002 at 19:07:55 (PDT)

Most filipinos came from South China thousands of years ago.
Ichiro fan Thursday, July 25, 2002 at 18:44:40 (PDT)

Hafti (or whatever):

Thanks for the laugh! You statement, "Just to add on, muong hatred for chinese is even greater then that of the strongest kinh hatred for chinese. I should know (don't want to talk about it, being 50% chinese makes you a traitor somehow). They rejected all that's chinese, and yet they're light, they are dong son, and yet they are light. Malay are they? YES! Polynesian? NO! Vietnam isn't even in polynesia. The modern polynesians had influence from negroids also, hence the name malay-polynesian, opposed to just malay (in vietnams case). Like i said, refer to my Mon-Khmer example, where the Mon and Khmer are totally different people."

Did you know that before the Han(northern Mongoloid) invaded the south, all the ethics were descendant of "AFRICAN"...So they all are dark (negro-like), they rule China as the first dynasty. See the pattern of the red(African descendant) and the Blue one(northern Mongolioid also later the Han ethnic/ lighter complex).

http://imbs.massey.ac.nz/bio_evol/Topic6/Lahn-etal00.pdf

I feel for you to not see that one of the red line during the 6000 B.C. was the originated of the Dong Son culture, passing through the north part of Vietnam and South China.

White complexion is later due to the blue line invasion.

Say what you want, twist what you like, but your arguement is weak. Here's where I will ignore someone like you, who has no medical backgroud. Yeah go ahead, you can say the moon is a big cheese, like I care.
The TraveLLer Thursday, July 25, 2002 at 18:37:41 (PDT)

To, the traveller;

"Genetic important about the Yueh and the Dong Son:
http://imbs.massey.ac.nz/bio_evol/Topic6/Lahn-etal00.pdf"

On page 2, it speaks of the diversity of SE asia and how it is now hypothesized that all E asian nations probably originated from there. Good for SE asians, bad for your hyposthesis on how the chinese moved down. If your right, it's not that the chinese moved down. Only that they moved home...

On page 5, it states that E asian haploids show a northward migration. I don't know how they can get something like that from genes but hey, it's your source. It speaks about a diaspora northwards.

On page 7, it speaks of a mirgation from SE Asia south to areas like malaysia. Speaks about how the polynesian ancestry coming from SE Asia is wrong, since the melanesian haploid isn't found in modern polynesians. Clears the dong son of having relations with the polynesians! It speaks of how the polynesian and micronesian haploid is a subset in SE Asia.

You labelled it as IMPORTANT, which drove me to read it. Can you pay me back 15 minutes to half an hour of my life reading this? It doesn't really say anything about the DONG SON, or YUEH, but only the FAR PREHISTORIC to the point of NO IDENTITY. THIS SITE IS based on reputing the ideas of coming-out-of-africa. And thoughout the article refers to that theory. No refering to the vietnamese, vietnam, dong son, red river delta or even yueh. YOU EXPECTED ME NOT TO READ IT, but i did, and now i found out it's CRAP. NO VALUE TO OUR DEBATE AT ALL. I labelled the pages that even had reference to the SE ASIANS, that was how vague it was, not even mentioning exactly which country or which group.

You said that site was important, and that it had information on the dong son and yueh. NOT one reference to those groups. Only on SE asians and how asian people started in SE asia. Thank you, that site talks of a migration from SE ASIA (which includes vientam) north (which includes china).

"7)http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~kaplan/H370/ap06.pdf

8)http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~kaplan/H370/ap05.pdf"

NOTHING specific on migration south to SE asia, talks mostly of the north. Nevermind even talking about the dong son, or yueh AT ALL.

"http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/ssuma2.html"

The site was talking about 'The Records of the Grand Historian'. And his life. Again no reference to the dong son, vietnam, SE asia. It had Chunyu Yueh, BUT that was talking about the person, NOT the people. TRY AGAIN. STOP GIVING US THIS kind of irrelevent stuff for reference trying to make it look like you have support. It's about a person, not the people!.
Hafti Thursday, July 25, 2002 at 18:34:57 (PDT)

To, k;

"one question: if the ede, bana are descendants of the Dong Son, do they possess or still preserve the Dong Son drums like the kinyhs do?"

I know it was for the traveller, but here i go. The closest descendents considered by scientists AND historians are the muong. Who look very much like todays viets anyways. The muong preserve the dong son drums a lot more then any other ethnic group i hear of.

To, Viethistory freak;

"Do you have anything to prove Dong Son are malay-polynesians? In fact, the ancient inhabitants in Vietnam during Hoa Binh and Dong Son culture are Lac Viet(yueh)."

Actually, the red river delta people lived at a time long before the name yueh even roamed the earth. The red river delta was roamed by the son vi as early as 22 thousand bc, practiced agriculture at 14 thousand bc. Welly known descendents of the son vi were the hoa binh, then the dong son, then the muong. That is considered to be the direct atleast.

The yueh in the other hand might have been related though, but at that time not of the same civilization, but actually came in later on due to northern chinese attacks.

To, the traveller;

"and they present magnificent examples of the early Chinese competence in cartography."

Hmmm, we learnt how to make maps from them... I don't see the revelency of this in the debate on the migrations of the chinese into vietnam. Only that the governor of vietnam (after china takeover) took advantage and made himself emperor of vietnam renaming the territory nan-yue.

"but we do not have figures from the census of Later Han...though it is possible the region benefited from highway and water communication..."

Means nothing, but that they had no census and vietnam COULD have benifited.

"We do not, unfortunately, have any census figures for the population of Jiaozhi commandery under the Later Han dynasty, but in 2 AD there were almost three quarters of a million people registered, more than in all the rest of the province put together, and it seems certain that the number of inhabitants must have reached above a million during the second century AD. Jiuzhen commandery increased by about a quarter, from 166,013 to 209,894, and we are told that Rinan gained more than 40 per cent, from just under 70,000 to just over 100,000: it seems likely, however, that this last figure reflects the situation at the time of greatest prosperity, before the rebellion and partial withdrawal of the late 130s."

Remember, the gain was talking about nan-yue not just northern vietnam. It's talking mostly about the growth of GAUNGDONG, not that of northern vietnam. The total assimilation of the yueh in guangdong is undenyable, most don't even acknowledge their yueh roots. The growth seems to be refering to SE China. Jiuzhen commandery, Jiaozhi commandery, Rinan; hmmm can you tell me where each exactly is?

"An intensive exodus of Chinese people to the southern sea also lead to the first foundations of Chinese communities in South East Asia, in Vietnam and later Singapur."

That's talking about the chinese communities. I was talking about the development of vietnamese communities.

The only thing that this article talks about is the population growth of vietnam during that time. After every war there is usually a boom baby effect, poor or rich. The thing that the article talks about is the population growth of region. In that article it does not say anything about the figures of people moving in or births. PLUS if it's migrations in, then why does the vietnamese langauge still exist if the migrations were so overwhelming? Only explaination is that the growth was mainly due to birth rate rises, keeping the indigenous population high enough to keep their language in use enough to still exist. Usually when your overwhelmed like that from 70k to a 750k, if the population is foreign then the people your trying to assimilate will lose ALL identity of their past, take the identity of the majority and lose their language. From what you can see that didn't happen.

"Not to mention the Ming Dynasty, which An Nam guy had stated earlier. Oh well, it seems to me there are no Chinese living in Vietnam, but what do I know? Human has never reached to the moon..."

Thanks, this only proves that your weird. I was talking about migrations, which this article only talks about population growth (or atleast the points you wanted me to see). You don't have articles on the migrations only the population growth, population growth as a whole usually is contributed more by births then migrations. And that article didn't say anything about a huge migration at all. Don't see the importance of that post at all.

BUT i find those sites you gave us to be pretty interesting, didn't read them yet, but i'll read the ones i find important and tell you what i think.
Hafti Thursday, July 25, 2002 at 18:06:41 (PDT)

Bravo to the Traveller! Good debate! Don't worry about Hafti, he doesn't know anything! Been reading your posts, you make lots of sense. Keep up the good work!

Smile ;p
Just watching Thursday, July 25, 2002 at 16:07:56 (PDT)

The traveler: the yuehs are a group consisting of mongoloid, malay, and even negritos. the word yueh refer to the inhabitants in what is now South China. It doesn't mean the yueh are negrito as a whole or 100 yueh groups are all racialy related.in fact, those groups hve many differences in terms of culture, custom.
KG Thursday, July 25, 2002 at 16:04:45 (PDT)

J.Lee: linguistic similarities only proves ainu are similar to austronesian on a linguistic/cultural level. to prove a racial ties has a long way to go. An example would be finnish and koreans who speak the altaic language but by no means are racially related. Your source said a totally different from mine.
which makes me question the credibility of those internet websites.
k Thursday, July 25, 2002 at 15:58:45 (PDT)

Hafti (or whatever):

"Just to add on, muong hatred for chinese is even greater then that of the strongest kinh hatred for chinese. I should know (don't want to talk about it, being 50% chinese makes you a traitor somehow). They rejected all that's chinese, and yet they're light, they are dong son, and yet they are light. Malay are they? YES! Polynesian? NO! Vietnam isn't even in polynesia. The modern polynesians had influence from negroids also, hence the name malay-polynesian, opposed to just malay (in vietnams case). Like i said, refer to my Mon-Khmer example, where the Mon and Khmer are totally different people."

****Dong Son People were the Malay-polynesian. I see you are not so well educated.*****

1) Here's one in Japanese version: http://web.sfc.keio.ac.jp/~nomura/2001c/movement.html

2) http://www.bvom.com/resource/vn_history.asp?pContent=Pre-History

3) http://www.viettouch.com/hist/vietnam_history.html

4)
http://dig.anthro.niu.edu/anth310/04mandala/001mandala.html

5)
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Texts/Scholarly/Tran_Quoc_Vuong.html

6)
http://www.indonesianheritage.com/Encyclopedia/Ancient_History/body_index.html

7)
http://students.washington.edu/dbiggs/courses/histas469/lecture03/lecture03.html
Cry all you want. But the truth is the truth...The Dong son people (Yueh) were the Malay-Polynesian and they migrated to the Pacific.
The TraveLLer Thursday, July 25, 2002 at 14:59:12 (PDT)

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS