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, foot man;

You say i use supersition for my observations. But you seem to be just as ignorant. What was that you say? That you heard that people with longer big toes are rich, and those without are poor. And you don't say you got your sources at the same place as me.

You claim to have gotten it off some New English Medical Journal or something, give me the source, a website or such...
Hafti Tuesday, August 20, 2002 at 12:20:31 (PDT)

Philippines is part of Asia-Pacific Region.

That's why you see some Filipinos choose as a Pacific Islander and some Asia. Our physical attributes alone exemplified our true mixed background genetically and culturally.

Through our looks, languages/dialects, religion, culture, are accumulated from different culture around the world. One American anthropologist conceded that only Philippines in the world that has mixtures of Asian, Arabian, European, Latin & American.
window of Asia Tuesday, August 20, 2002 at 09:14:21 (PDT)

Hafiz
hey ... hmmmm well i speak for myself when i say i think arab people r fine... its the individual not a group... back in the day... an arab princess got married to a korean prince..... there last name is chang or jang.... =) so some koreans have some arab blood in them
=) Monday, August 19, 2002 at 22:38:36 (PDT)

To, the traveller;

Hey, even though i do sent insults, remember the reason why i do. You started all this insulting first, and since then you have never appologized, but since then only made it worse and worse.

Even once telling me to get on my knees and eat my food with my bare hands so i can be closer to my ancestors. Do you think this wouldn't make me angry to the point of insulting you back? But you shouldn't mind that all of my insults have been true, only pointed out by what you have said. You can not read. Concluded by the 3/4 million people debate. You don't read your own sites, concluded by the debate where you brought up 7 sites, where only of them even mentioned the Yueh! You don't keep to your ideas, or you don't tell us that you changed your mind, and that you try to get people to think that you had these ideas from the start. Concluded from what you wrote before, and what you wrote today.

From what i can see, what you wrote today (sunday) is EXTREMELY different theories, from what you wrote two days before and beyond that point going backwards.

You say that you say that the Han blood must equal that of the Yueh. Claiming that you started with this theology before, yet in your posts before you claim that our only ancestors are the Han, because you claim that the Yueh were dark. When in fact there were ONE HUNDRED different Yueh tribes, each different, so not all of them were dark, we viets probably came from the lighter variety. You once said that you appologized for the mix up for the Nguyen family origin, but you have not appologized (saying you did isn't an appology), all you said is that the last name Yuen, Ruan and Nguyen are the same, but you didn't find the Nguyen equivalent because you searched for Yuen. BUT all three of these should share the same character, since they are the same. A contradictory in idea.
Lying that you didn't have these ideas isn't a start.
Hafti Monday, August 19, 2002 at 22:20:23 (PDT)

To, the traveller;

I just want to say, your points of which i have replied to are points which are solid. It has logic, but only lacks support.

Your standpoint seems to be based on the fact that most viet names have a chinese equivalent, but through genetics it shows that sharing the same last name doesn't necessarily mean sharing the same father (the Y Chromosome test). Please reply to this point which is made by the post before this.

Also the fact that only 30% of viets have sinodonty, which is a han trait, all descendents to the han have this trait which developed 18 thousand years ago, it had enough time to circle among the population, yet it only exist among 30% of those who have been examined.

These two FACTS are genetically based, and since your a doctor, you should tell me why these points are wrong.

Both of these points disapprove of the two main points you brought up: Han father/son relationship, and marriage with the Han.

Did you know that the southern han is closer related to the vietnamese as a whole then they are related to the northern han? This is genetically based, and if you read my genetic sites you will see a chart on this. The northern han are the original han, and yet the southern han are more related to a population who was originally non-han. This can only conclude a relationship between the two ethnics due to a common ancestry, but separate to that of the han, most possibly the relationship is shared with the Yueh. The Cantonese language i heard is called Yueh, an indication of the passdown of the indentity.

Also the fact that the Muong have been recorded to have been around the mountainous areas for over 2 thousand years, they shut themselves out of chinese influence. And yet they look lighter then other minority groups. This supports the idea, that mongoloids would have migrated to the area earlier then the han have. This mongoloid could be one of the 100 Yueh who has been in the area of SE China longer then the Han has ever been there.

These are my main points, and yet you have yet to show why these points have not been reputted. These points can be described to have pushed your points away, since they are historically based, archaelogically based, and yes even medically based. When most of your points do make sense, but has very little support either then logistic belief. All of your main points like common name has been countered by genetics, your point on viet assimilating can be supported to be different from other sources, and there has been very little support for a vast han migration.

Even in the site you claim that describes han population growth in itself does not describe han migration. But instead only describes POPULATION GROWTH, which in the site itself is evidence that Sima Qian did count the non-chinese yue (viets), noting that the yue population outnumbers the han.

It says that since then there has been little recorded after that, even the later han dynasty did not record anything of population growth, so the migrations would have not been recorded as you say or want to say. You have not yet provided proof that this 3/4 million was han.
Hafti Monday, August 19, 2002 at 21:31:50 (PDT)

To, the traveller;

Holy Cow! You actually changed your views? The only thing i find offencive is your way of reading before. That site itself spoke NOTHING about that 3/4 million being of the han, but it spoke of it just being people.

Actually i acknowledged that there must have been Han influence in our blood, but i doubt that it is as great as the Yueh blood is. If you go back to my conversation with K in that post it explains my stand on it.

A support for this is the Y Chromosome. Can you explain the fact that most Vietnamese names can be translated into chinese, but when the Y Chromosome test was done only 30% of these Vietnamese who hold the same last name as the chinese don't have the same Y Chromosome as 95% of the chinese hold. This is atleast evidence of a non-han father, on the mother side anything could happen.

And once again, this post of yours is educated, but you yourself changed your stand. You now say that modern viets are probably a mixture of Yueh, Han and possibly Dong Son. But in your last posts before this you did not say this. You posted sites that said that the Yueh were dark, and that modern viets aren't dark, so we can't be descendents to the Yueh, but only the Han. THIS CAN BE SUPPORTED BY ALL WHO WAS IN THIS DEBATE, this was at around when you gave us all those sites with no actual backup (the one where you say it had info on the Yueh, it it was about some scholar instead and about afrocentric ideas and such). I do appreciate that your points do make sence, the thing i DO NOT appreciate is your deviation on your ideas. Even though your ideas did not make sense to me before, that all the Yueh were dark (there were 100 Yueh tribes, each different, but joined up to fight the chinese, so it doesn't make sense that they all look the same because they were all different), atleast you did not lie on what you stood for. Now that you changed it, and claim that you started with these ideas before but you did not, i am disappointed to see this. If you picked up an idea or a theory from me or someone else, say you did, don't pretend you started off with these ideas.

I can find posts that you say that the Yueh are dark, the Red River Delta people are dark and such, so we viets can't be descendents to them, so it only leaves the lighter Han. Which to me is a very weak argument, i was arguing on the fact that the Yueh and Delta people had a significant influence on our identity today. Hence many continued stories today from those times, and our loyalty to them.

And i find your argument on how the Han must have been of larger number to have controlled the Yueh and Dong Son. If you learn more about the Dong Son you would know that even though the Dong Son were found to have the MOST advanced bronze work at that time (to the point where the french insisted that they came to vietnam thousands of years ago to teach us, it's funny but true), this advancement was sparce (meaning that only a few knew how to make these drums and weapons, while the FAR majority never even saw such things. While in china's case, even though the technology was lacking, it was more widespread and most people knew what a shovel was or what a drum was). Militarily the chinese beat us, due to the fact that the local dong son were farmers (for this reason the shu took advantage and made the kingdom which was to fall under Chao To later on). Your population argument was weak due to a very simple logic, the french came in and they took control of vietnam with a very small population. They had military upperhand (comparable to that of what china had).

I find your speculation that the ancient Son Vi or one of their descendents can't be our ancestors due to the fact of different characteristic. Remember that the area of vietnam was inhabited by humans for close to 50 thousand years, with clear distinction between culture starting 22 thousand BC. Within this time MANY mutations can take place, remember that the mutations that created the modern Han sinodonty style teeth only happened around 18 thousand years ago. And also around this time it is said that the skin color changed. The modern mongoloids evolved from a population of SE Asians who at one time can be described the same as of the HoaBinhian people.

So through this many of your simple points can be reputed.

The fact that the Han ALL have sinodonty, and only 30% of viets have sinodonty is also a deterant of your ideas. This is also a reason why i think that atleast the gene influence of the Yueh was greater then the Han gene influence was. Due to the lack of the show up of the sinodonty gene, which is another Han gene, this shows the lack of this gene in atleast 70% of the modern vietnamese.
Here are some important facts to look at;

1. 95% of Han chinese have Y Chromosome 7. While only 40% of Vietnamese have the Y Chromosome 7. Remember that all vietnamese names has an equivalent in chinese. Like Tran to Chan. Last names are past down from father to son, Y Chromosome in the same manner. If we are truly from the same father we who share the same last name would have had the same father, and the same father is indicated by Y Chromosome.

Through this i know that even though all viets have a chinese equivalent name, it is not true that we have the same lineage from fathers. The last names could have been forced down our throats a long time ago in an attempt to assimilate us, it was also done by the vietnamese to the chinese at one time (one of those south vietnamese presidents i think did it).

2. The frequency of sinodonty is extremely low. In han chinese populations it comes to close to 100%. Where in vietnamese populations it runs to only 30%.

This in itself shows a separation/difference in ancestors who past down the gene.

3. The non-chinese yue population was noted by Sima Qian himself to be greater then the local han population.

4. Throughout the years of chinese rule, many rebellions were SUPPORTED by the local peasants. This is a show that they were not satisfied with chinese rule, either for reason of mistreatment, or the reason that they don't like to be ruled under a foreign power. Vietnam alone had 20 wars with china (i think this includes major uprisings), this is a show that their must have been mistreatment and unsatisfactory ruling.

This is evidence itself, as the chinese are known to treat their own very well. The Yueh were considered low to the Han, and areas of Nam Viet by then on was treated by that. If we were truly han, the han would have treated us like brothers, not cattle to the point of dis-unity.

5. The remains of the name 'viet' in our vocabulary. Even though we were EXTREMELY sinicized we still recognized ourselves as viet. If we did not consider ourselves viet, when the local power houses rose up and say that viets should unite to fight the oppressing Han, the viets would have not known what the chinese were talking about.

6. You say that the Yueh could have overran the Dong Son. This logic is actually NOT supported by scientists as you claim. It is 'concluded' that is is not hard for the Yueh to have assimilated into the Dong Son culture (meaning being absorbed into the Dong Son). Through this wording alone you can see that scientists themselves aren't sure.

http://www.hawaii.edu/cseas/pubs/vietnam/vietnam.html

7. The stories written in 'Dai Viet Su Ky' is actually very old. The story of the Hung Kings were refered to a speech by one of the Trung Sisters. This is a legend atleast 1000 years older then when that book was published.

I replied to all of your ideas, 1-4. Now can you reply to my ideas (1-7) is a different story?

Even though i dislike the way you present yourself in the past, i appreciate you for your change of attitude (which is rather pleasant to speak to), keep it up. BUT don't just convert your ideas and pretend you took up these ideas since the start.

There is written evidence by you, where you said that the modern viets must have NO Yueh blood, and ALL han blood, due to the physical differences. It is still in many of our minds that you said that during when you brought up all those afrocentric sites, and saying that the Yueh were all dark, which is not true due to the fact that the Yueh consisted of 100 different tribes, each of different background. You also said that the Dong Son were overran by the Yueh, very little support is made for this, but from scientific data reported by historians and some archaelogists, it is supported that it wasn't 'hard' for the Yueh to have been asssimilated into the Dong Son instead of vice verca. Many posters were around, and if you want to change your ideals this fast and pretend you had these stand points since the beggining can only fool the people who just came here today, everyone else who followed this debate knows your past standpoint, so please make it clear what you have learnt from where, and how your ideas have changed. Since it is obvious that it changed EXTREMELY.

Hope your 'patients' fare well.
Hafti Monday, August 19, 2002 at 21:13:41 (PDT)

rare stuff,

"Siberian Asians (natives) can be divided into several groups:

1) Iranians (Caucasoid);
2) Western Turkics (Caucasoid);
3) normal Turkics;
4) Tungus;
5) Arctic people (like "Eskimos");
6) Mongols;
7) Ugrians."

Who are the Western Turkics? People of Turkey, Azerbaijan and the Turkic tribes inside of Iran are Caucasoid. For the most part, those "Turkic" people are really the Indo-European natives who adopted the language and religion of their nomadic conquerors.
Central Asian Turks are biracial, while the real "Siberian" Turks (Tuvans, Yakuts, Khakass, etc.) look no different from Mongols and Tungus.

"-The non-Caucasoid are those who are more interesting for us:

Turks are mostly dark-skinned in the east and northwest, in the north and south rather light-sknned. They have abundant body-hair and are narrow-shouldered. In some regions they are taller than the surrounding people. Their mentality is "fierce and warlike", whatever that means."

Turks have always been known to be a martial people. If you analyze the Mongol conquests of Genghis Khan, more than 6/8th of this armies were comprised of Turkic tribes.

But, the Uygurs of China are fairly peaceable folk.

"Ugrians are still an enigma to the scientists. They are light-skinned, but that is one of the few of their features known. They might have mixed with their Turkic neighbours, I'm not sure about that. However, the Western Ugrians are peaceful and have less in common with Turks."

There are few Ugric tribes surviving today. One (Khanty-Mansi) are biracial (like the Turkic Tatars of Russia). The Hungarians are an Ugric tribe and their ancestors mixed with a lot of Turkic tribes: Huns and Bulgars. You find a lot of Turkic loan words in their vocabulary even to this day.
Turan Monday, August 19, 2002 at 18:50:12 (PDT)

the aryans originated in India and the pure Aryans live only in India.
yayati Monday, August 19, 2002 at 16:55:26 (PDT)

"If the Filipinos were muslim today, theres no doubt in my mind that we would be called terrorists."

Yeah, but Phillipines is considered a hotspot for terrorist activity by the US right now. What's that group called? Abu Sayed?
TSJ Eric@KristinKreuk.net Monday, August 19, 2002 at 16:16:43 (PDT)

Asian Bubba:

Hey, it's cool. Just as long as you aren't one of those fools who goes around telling people to "come to my church" and all that. I mean, no offense, but like my mama told me, "Anything good in life, you have to get it yourself. It won't come to you." I actually get kind of offended when these people come up to me because they are in essence saying that I need help, and that I am going to hell without their "assistance."

I agree that America is the best country in the world, and I appreciate the work the serviceman do for the country. Hey, now that we brought up movies, do military people find the depictions accurate? Watching Black Hawk Down, they seemed to show these rough and tumble Army Rangers as a bunch of scared little wimps who have never seen any action before.

Yeah, the US is like the world's police force. I guess people resent that in other countries just like how citizens resent the regular police. However, it seems like a lot of missions go haywire, and end up causing many casualties, and no results. What did the mission in Somalia accomplish?
TSJ Eric@KristinKreuk.net Monday, August 19, 2002 at 16:13:18 (PDT)

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS