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.]

k,

The website source I cited, http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/powell_rose.htm, is the National Park Service of the United States Government. In addition, it cites the works of three scientists, Brace, Turner, and Hunt (1990), in viewing the Ainu as a southeast Asian population.

Actually, it is you who lack credibility. You claimed that Finnish is an Altaic language. That is false as Finnish is an Uralic language. In addition, linguists nowadays classify Korean and Japanese languages as isolated languages because of the languages' mixed origin with an Austronesian root. On top of that is a Chinese based vocabulary that exceeds 60%.
J Lee Monday, July 29, 2002 at 09:09:39 (PDT)

To, the traveller and all who are interested;

"That was Dong Son cultural community. This culture attained a degree of development higher than that of others at that time in the region and had its own characteristics but still bore the features of Southeast Asian culture because of the common South Asian racial root (Southern Mongoloid) and the water rice culture."
From: http://www.vietnamembassy-usa.org/learn/cul-evolution.php3

That site suggests a dong son classification of southern mongoloid.

"Many studies suggest that Muong peoples were indigenous inhabitants, masters of Hoa Binh culture (post stone age), masters of Dong Son culture (copper age)."
AND
"As an indigenous clan of the same and long origin with that of Kinh people, after differentiation into two clans with full elements of each ethnic, Muong people continuously preserve and develop their very prosperous and original culture which means language, customs and habits, literature and arts..."
From: http://www.hoabinh.gov.vn/main_vanhoamuong_eng.html

That suggests a common ancestry between the muong and kinh. The muong are considered indigenous (being there first) thus being descendents to the Son Vi (as they were there first), but the route to where they are today is unsure. A guess would be that they went from Son Vi -> Dong Dau -> Dong Son -> Muong.

"The Muong number more than 900,000, mostly settled in the province of Hoa
Binh and in part of Thanh Hoa. Originally, the Viet and the Muong formed a
single, unique population, and did not separate until about 2000-1700 years
ago. The Muong remained in the valleys and foothills of the mountainous
zones, and did not fall under the influence of Chinese culture as did the
Viet, but to that of the Thai, their most immediate neighbours."
From: http://www.phapviet.com/~tranquanghai/english/montagne1.htm

This suggest that the muong stayed up in the mountain. Because you have a bit of trouble understanding little but significant words. The word stay signifies that they were already there, the chinese influence stayed out of the mountains from my knowledge.

Here's a few interesting sites:

http://www.home.ch/~spaw2918/page00/00en-sea-people.html

http://www.wcotc.com/euvolution/articles/genhistory.html
Hafti Monday, July 29, 2002 at 01:13:14 (PDT)

To, the traveller;

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

Is that the only post you have even close to being revelent to our debate? I'm not so welly educated and yet when i reply i am using YOUR sites, and the meaning doesn't present it as you say it does. You bring up more useless sites then i've seen in two years.

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

I already explained that site in detail, it says nothing on what you emply it does. I read the entire thing and outlined the meaning of each page that refers to anything close to being SE Asian or SE Chinese. Try to repute my points directly and tell me why they're wrong instead of giving me more childish antics.

"http://web.sfc.keio.ac.jp/~nomura/2001c/movement.html"

Thanks for the site! It is VERY interesting, although most of it is in japanese, it was easy to understand.

Here's an excerpt from it, it is from japanese research i presume.

"３、Melanesoid：（１）Hoa-Binh Culture（貨平文化）
　　　　　　　　　　　剥石握斧、スクレイパー（掻器）
　　　　　　　　（２）Bac-son Culture（北山文化）
　　　　　　　　　バクソン式石斧、有肩石器、縄文土器
"

This labels the hoa binh as melanesoid. That is enough to prove that the modern classification system is SCREWED, as other sites hypothesize that the hoa binh as of the australo-negroid group! Both groups of which the hoa binh aren't classified under on this site. If scientists aren't so sure what makes you think you can be more accurate then a scientist that has no idea?

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

I already explained that site well, it is in conflict with the japanese one.

"http://www.viettouch.com/hist/vietnam_history.html"

MAN, weren't you the same guy that said that this site is INCORRECT? So i said let's not use it too much, and you use it as a major backup. PLUS it doesn't even prove what your saying! Give me an excerpt from that EXACT page that proves that the dong son were of malayo-polynesian stock or even having negrito features! The word malayo-polynesian only exists on that page ONCE, and it refers it to a LEGEND, how accurate can it be to refer to Au Co as being of malayo-polynesian? The site itself doesn't prove or even support what your saying very clearly.

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

That site doesn't refer to the dong son as malayo-polynesian. But to the cham as malayo-polynesian. The ancestors to the cham were the Sa Huynh not the dong son. AGAIN another useless site that does not support your points.

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

OMG, another useless site. This talks about a study, but does not reveal what the studies revealed. It talks about three major civilizations, the dong son, the sa huynh, and the dong nai. The dong son classification is in debate, or atleast messed up because each site has it's own views. The sa huynh is malayo-polynesian. And the dong nai has some dravidian blood in them. Yeah, this site only talks of the diversity of vietnam at that time. VERY interesting, BUT once again, no indications to proving your point.

"http://www.indonesianheritage.com/Encyclopedia/Ancient_History/body_index.html"
This talks about the dong son art not the people. Once again not proving your point. It talks about the drums, but the dong son were sea bearing and traders. Read your so trusted viettouch.com site, it's in there. No proof of actual dong son migrations south, just drums which could have gotten there by trade as much of the historians in viettouch speculate to be true.

"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."

Why should i cry? You can't even repute to my points because it's true. The classification of the dong son is still undecisive. The truth is that you can't prove what your saying. The malayo-polynesians did move from vietnam southward, BUT remember the sa huynh? They were even better with the sea then the dong son, they were trading partners with the dong son, and they are decided to be malayo-polynesian. The sources only said that the malayo-polynesians migrated south BUT it doesn't say that the people who migrated were from the red river delta. Remember vietnams diversity, having negritos (dong nai), malayo-polynesians (sa huynh), and the dong son (which is all messed up, it's ancestor is decided to be melanesian, and melanesians don't have a strand of polynesian chromosomes in them, from that site you gave. It's just very messed up and undecided).

And don't know why your so stubborn to stick to being ignorant. STOP giving me useless sites that don't back your points up. You say i'm uneducated, but just now i would say the differ. If you can't read well enough to see what your own sources are saying then don't BS. And if your sites ARE revelent then tell me why through it's contents please.
Hafti Sunday, July 28, 2002 at 22:04:16 (PDT)

To, chinatown;

"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)."

Yeah, it is surprising, BUT little similarities that exist might be brought up by a SMALL and less significant ancestor on either side. Like the yueh might be an ancestor of little significance, but what they left behind might be noticeable today, no one really knows for sure. Only theories, if these were facts no one would be debating would they?

No one runs out of their bedroom every night yelling that the sun rose, as they know it happens all the time. But if they see a mermaid one day, come out the next day out cold and never sees on again, they will undoubtably talk about it til' they die.
Hafti Sunday, July 28, 2002 at 21:23:25 (PDT)

To, Hm...;

He's just trying to make his credibility more stable as he basically almost made it topple. But most of those sites he gave had nothing to do with the Yueh or Dong Son in particular, maybe a line or two (literally), but nothing important to prove his point.
Hafti Sunday, July 28, 2002 at 21:17:01 (PDT)

To, J Lee;

"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."

In SE Asia there is evidence of agriculture predating that of even the mesopotamians (but is still in debate). The civilization was the Dong Dau and possibily the Hoa Binh (still a debate on if the Hoa Binh had it or not). The Dong Dau lived in Phu To of vietnam and dated back to 14 thousand BC.

So no they weren't starving or inferior in agriculture, just that they lost in later wars.

"and more intelligent"

Aiya, that's harsh. I wouldn't use the word intelligent, but i would have used more advanced due to the experiences and need to figure out new technology to survive better in their much different conditions.
Hafti Sunday, July 28, 2002 at 21:15:26 (PDT)

I found many similarities in the written form of Hangul with the Chinese strokes. My conclusion would be that when King Sejong invented Hangul (a late invention) with its officials, they looked up to Chinese pictograms as the only source of reference, which is hardly surprising.

It makes a lot of sense for those bilingual students who had studies some Korean and Chinese.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/9594/seasia.html

some similarites:

Korean "m" is Chinese "kou, mouth".
Korean vertical n horizontal stroke has
Chinese counterpart.
So do "k/g", "L", "s", "t/d", "o".

I cant think of any for "h" & "ng".
Chinese Sunday, July 28, 2002 at 21:15:07 (PDT)

To, don't lie;

"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."

No one is saying the modern cantonese are direct descendents of the yueh. Only that because the yueh is even an ancestor, the similarities between SE chinese and most vietnamese is due to the yueh ancestor.
Hafti Sunday, July 28, 2002 at 21:09:59 (PDT)

To, TSJ;

Usually people get sent by family and friends. And even after they get sent they would move near to family and friends, so that might be the thing that makes people look the way you say. Also when people get to the new country they would later get the rest or some of the family over.
Hafti Sunday, July 28, 2002 at 21:03:31 (PDT)

Folks,

This is my last post. I've been here long enough. I met some great people who wanted to learn more about their root, and some who denied. The fact is the "Yueh" tribes were real, they were "Austronasian" (Negroid-like) feature. All the populations in the East Asia stretching to the Southeast Asia were descendant of the Africa. It wasn't until later when the Mongoloid race started from Siberia and invaded southward that gave the light-skin cpmplexed to most of the east Asians(Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, Japan, and etc...) Think what you want, but science with the genetic coding will not change history for any political reason. Good luck to all on your search to your ancestor. We all are related in some ways. Good bye!
The TraveLLer Sunday, July 28, 2002 at 18:30:10 (PDT)

To, the traveller;

Hmmm, if you read your posts, it didn't really state that the dong son were of negroid type. READ, it's there.

"Skulls found in Hoa Binh, Bac Son, Quynh Van and Minh Cam suggest that the people belonged to the Australo-Negroid group."
From: http://www.bvom.com/resource/vn_history.asp?pContent=Pre-History

It didn't state anything about how the dong son, son vi, and dong dau skulls suggested this. These are very important finds, not minor at all, and yet it's not mentioned of as australo-negroid.

You have a habit of giving useless sites as back-up. Explained by my posts when i read your sites...
Hafti Sunday, July 28, 2002 at 16:16:23 (PDT)

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS