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.]

Hafti:

You are contradicting your website with this paragraph:

"The Hakka, Minnan, Viets and some others are descendents to the Yueh. It has been proven that the Minnan and Hakka have a distinct genetic make-up compared to the han. It has even been suggested that they should consider themselves Yueh instead of Han."

Here's the link that you posted:
http://www.asiawind.com/hakka/history.htm

"From most of the evidence gathered, it can be concluded that Hakkas are likely Han people rather than a derivative from the Xiongnu."

Your site wrote that the Hakkas were the Han's descendant.
Just Watching Monday, August 26, 2002 at 12:15:20 (PDT)

To "yueh are a mongoloid race":

Don't confuse the "Yueh" and the modern vietnamese are the same race. In fact, the modern Vietnamese are very diverse that they are not only composed of the "Yueh" population alone. The modern Vietnamese are a mixture of race, but mainly of a southern mongoloid race. And don't confuse that the northern Chinese are the true Han, they could be a Mongolian subgroup also.

So prove to me that the original "Yueh", 4000 years ago, were a 100% mongoloid race. Today's Minnan, Yue and other sothern Chinese are an admixture of the Hanren(Han) and the local aborigines(Malay-polynesian/Austronesian), as described by Hafti's website: http://home.i1.net/~alchu/hakka/toihak0.htm

Your turn now to prove that the original "Yueh", approximately 4000 years ago before they interacted with the Han, were a mongoloid group. I'm still waiting...
The TraveLLer Monday, August 26, 2002 at 10:21:43 (PDT)

To, "yueh are a mongoloid race".

Then prove it to me. I'm still waiting.
The TraveLLer Monday, August 26, 2002 at 10:06:34 (PDT)

"PLUS, Trieu Da was a Hakka! So that migration was another Yueh controlling another Yueh."

Again, prove to me that Trieu Da was an Hakka. Give me his genetic coding, a source at least. In Medicine, when discussing something one must have hardcore proof and evidence to backup. If you don't have a solid evidence, you would say a suspection, rather than a confirmation. Were you the one who said that you are applying for Med school? If so, show me the genetic component of Trieu Da...

"Even though the Han and other aboriginal groups have common ancestry, you can cross off the viets (jing), because they have common ancestry with the hakka and minnan(who are now proven to be of the Yueh)."

Nothing in this website mentioned about the "Viet", it only described the Viet Muong, in which they are considered as a minority ethnic in Vietnam.

"Can YOU deny genetic proof of our difference?"

I don't deny genetic; however, the genetic field in medicine is still in its infancy state, more studies need to be done in this field of medicine.

"Even the southern chinese have EXTREME differences with the Han, what makes you think the Viets can be more Han then the southern chinese are?"

Have you read your website carefully enough?

"No specific study on Hakka by Dr. Matsumoto was found. However,
he had one paper on Taiwanese ("Gm and Km allotypes of the Taiwanese" by H
Matsumoto et al in "Jap J Human Genet 1975; 20:169-173"). From the study in
Taichung area, an area with about 5% Hakka and 95% Hoklo, they classified
Taiwanese as southern Mongoloid group characterized by a high frequency of
Gm afb1b3."

A) They didn't have a specific study about the Hakka.
B) The study didn't mention anything about the Hakka are similar to the Vietnamese.
C) Taken account that the Taiwanese are classified as a southern Mongoloid. Which is a southern Han race, and they were not genetically the same as the Northern Mongolian. Southern mongoloid do have "Hanren"(Han) gene in them. Again, here's what it stated, "The genetic mixture of Southern Hanren
with national minorities has advanced to the point that the genetic
distance between a particular Southern Han population and a
neighboring minority may be shorter that the genetic distance between
two particular neighboring Han populations."

D) The Hakka got some genetic components from the Taiwanese Aborigine(Malayo-polynesian), there's no conclusion here yet to determine whether they did or didn't inhere any "Hanren"(Han) gene, however it's morelikely that they do, as noted in one of the author's paragraphs. Notice, the author did state this "No specific data of Hakka was shown or discussed in the book.
Hakka is only mentioned once when the waves of migration to Taiwan
are discussed. All these biological gene studies, Hakka in Taiwan or
China are primarily not the descendants of Northern Mongoloids but
primarily descendants of original southerners." Does this say that the Hakka were having the same gene as the modern Vietnamese. Clearly none in this webiste illustrated the difference between the Modern Vietnamese and the Hakka.

E) From your post, this stated, "The
G6PD mutant and F8C/G6PD polymorphism studies suggest that the Han and
minorities of southern China, southeastern Asians, Han and aboriginal groups
in Taiwan probably originate from the same ancestors somewhere in
Southeast Asia or southern China. The current Han population in Taiwan and
southern China are unlikely the descendants of massive migration of northern
Chinese."

Possible the the Han and the Hakka (since from the website it stated: "The contribution of Taiwanese aboriginal groups to Hakka Taiwanese
should be a very important component in discussing the origin of Hakka in
Taiwan.") came from the ancestor.

Do not confuse that all Northern Chinese are Han, this is clearly illustrated by the author which he stated the northern Chinese is divided into two subgroup, the Hanren (Han) and the Mongolian. In addition, it seemed like the southern Chinese is a mixture of the Hanren(Han) and the aborigine(possibly the Yueh), whereas the northern Han still remained an unmixed group.

Again, this shows your inability to comprehend a research paper. Further, can you tell me if this is an abstract or a peer review study that we are talking about? Do you know what is the difference between an abstract and a peer review?
The TraveLLer Monday, August 26, 2002 at 09:45:25 (PDT)

Hafti posted:

>>>> "And why haven't you ever actually posted a valid reply? I asked you to explain to me, if we all share similar names to the chinese (an indication of similar fathers by your ideology), then why do only 40% of viets on that tests show to have the chinese y chromosome? This indicates that we got the similar names not from the same father, but probably due to other means. So i don't believe that we are related just because of name. It has been proven genetically. It's ALL on that post."<<<<

Show me the genetic studies between the Muong, modern Vietnamese and the Chinese, and we will talk. So far you have posted nothing. Further, the study that you posted is about the "Hakka", and nothing is related to the Vietnamese. The "Jing" is not the Vietnamese. FYI, the "Kinh" written in Sino-Vietnamese(Han-Viet) is the same as "JIN" (not Jing) in Pinyin Chinese. Is this your delusional thought again? Further, the Dong Son weren't a Southern Mongoloid race, how's is that they are the main genetic distributor to the Vietnamese, since you said that the Muong and the Vietnamese(Kinh) came from the Dong Son? Just to remind you, the Yueh and the Dong son were two different clans. You haven't answer that question yet!

Have you read this part of your posted website?

A) "1) Chinese populations can be divided into northern and southern
groups.
2) The northern group is split into the Mongolian and Hanren (Han people)
subgroups. However, there is no southern Hanren subgroup in southern group.
Hanren and national minorities have mixed.
3) Hanren admixtures are less pronounced in north. On the other hand,
the heterogeneity of southern Hanren is so mixed that there is no way
to identify Southern Hanren. The genetic mixture of Southern Hanren
with national minorities has advanced to the point that the genetic
distance between a particular Southern Han population and a
neighboring minority may be shorter that the genetic distance between
two particular neighboring Han populations."

B) "In the discussion section, he made few very interesting points
as follows:
There is one generally accepted theory that Hanren moved along
Huanghe (Yellow River) migrated eastward, then moved towards the
south. However, northern Hanren have not mixed with any southern
Han populations and vice versa. There are three possible explanation
for this contradiction.

A) The number of investigated Han may not statistically large
enough, other wise, either the general understanding is wrong or the
origin of Hanren is not unique.
B) The unique migration route never existed. Nor is there any
indication of the existence of other routes to south.
C) There were at least two Han origins which were separated at
Changjiang (Yangtze River)."

This concluded that there were possibly TWO Han origins... So what is your point? Nothing mentioned about the "Yueh" population.

All this study showed is that the "Hakka" claiming themselves were the descendant of the Northerners were wrong, here's a quote from your website: " Two articles mentioned this
because the Hakka claimed they migrated from northern China but
have much higher rate. ( Tang, KT et al in Blood 1992, 79:2135 and
Chen, WP et al in Chinese Medical Journal (Taipei) 1987; 40: 443).
In the later article, in a northern general hospital (in Taipei, Taiwan)
12.9% of male newborn and 7.8% of male and female have G6PD deficiency
if both parents are Hakka. In overall population (including Hakka), the
rate of G6PD deficiency is 2.9% (male) and 1.9% (male and female)
respectively. The later figure of 2.9% and 1.9% are low because this
hospital is located at the area that many new residents came after 1949
and significant number of them are from northern China."

Again, this is nothing about the "Vietnamese" being a "Yueh", but rather the southerner Han which they have a little different of genetic material from their Northerner relative.

"F8C/G6PD polymorphism studies are available from certain areas.
Han and aboriginal groups in Taiwan have a similar pattern suggesting they
might have the same ancestors. The same F8C/G6PD haplotype was found in
1376T mutants in the Taiwanese and the Li minority in Hainan, China. The
G6PD mutant and F8C/G6PD polymorphism studies suggest that the Han and
minorities of southern China, southeastern Asians, Han and aboriginal groups
in Taiwan probably originate from the same ancestors somewhere in
Southeast Asia or southern China. The current Han population in Taiwan and
southern China are unlikely the descendants of massive migration of northern
Chinese."

What does this tell you? And something I would expect out of this reseasrch, since "K" has posted a similar Taiwanese study like this several months ago. And definitely, it's not about the "Yueh" that we are discussing here, but rather the southern Han origin.

Further, have you read this part, yet? This is quite interesting about your Muong's ethnicity. Still why is the Viet Muong wouldn't be classified as the modern Vietnamese, the Kinh? I mean wouldn't it be simply for the writter to write about the Vietnamese rather than to name the "Viet Muong" in his category of the Southeast Asians? Why not just plainly included the Vietnamese? Could it be that the modern Vietnamese is too confusing to category them in what subgroup? Or is that they have 1/2 and 1/2 mixture of the northerner and southerner Asians? This study still left out the Vietnamese, and only refered to the "Viet-Muong", which they are one of the minor ethnics in Vietnam. I will leave this open for now. Read this part:

"South Chinese join Southeast Asians while the North Chinese
associate with Koreans, Japanese, Ainu, Bhutanese and Tibetans.
Other Southeast Asians includes Malaysian, Balinese, Viet Muong,
Thai, Indonesian and Philippine."

If you read this part carefully, this tell you that the southerner chinese are admixture of the Han and the indigenous (possibly the Yueh) that it's hard to distinguish nowadays. NOTICE the Hanren are the HAN, and their genes are found among the Southern Chinese also.

" 1) Chinese populations can be divided into northern and southern
groups.
2) The northern group is split into the Mongolian and Hanren (Han people)
subgroups. However, there is no southern Hanren subgroup in southern group.
Hanren and national minorities have mixed.
3) Hanren admixtures are less pronounced in north. On the other hand,
the heterogeneity of southern Hanren is so mixed that there is no way
to identify Southern Hanren."

Does that tell you that the nearly every southern Chinese has the "Han's" gene in themselves that it's different to distinguish? Whereas, the northerner Chinese are divided into two subgroups, the Mongolian and the Hanren (Han). In addition, one must consider that China had been ruled two times by not the "Han" but by the northern mongoloid, one is the Yuen(Nguyen), the mongolian, and the Manchu/Qing(Thanh), the Manchurian. Can these accounts divided the two northerner Chinese population as mentioned by the author? Possibly.

It does seem that the modern Vietnamese are also derived from the "Han". It doesn't state anything in this article that the Northern Chinese were the true "Han", it only stated that the Northern Chinese is split betwen Han and Mongolian, two subgroups that were less likely to mix. By reading this article, it seems that the Han is founded throughout China and that the Han are different from the Mongolian. So what is your point?
The TraveLLer Monday, August 26, 2002 at 01:58:58 (PDT)

"Only 30% of viets are sinodonts, and that is in the dentistry book. READ IT, it can be picked up at a local library, just look at the data then put it back on the shelf."

Where is it, my delusional friend? Where? Post here so everyone can read. So far you speak with no proof of evidence... Your word is cheap my friend, put up the scientific study if you have it. If you don't please don't run around like a clown. I'm still waiting!
The TraveLLer Monday, August 26, 2002 at 00:12:05 (PDT)

"I DON'T recall any muongs holding any chinese last names. And if they do, remember the Y Chromosome test. It has been written CLEARLY in history that the muong stayed isolated in the mountains for thousands of years. "

Again, show me the studies. Put up or shut up. I'm still waiting!
The TraveLLer Monday, August 26, 2002 at 00:09:17 (PDT)

To, yueh are a mongoloid race.;

I don't know about that higher nose bridge thing. I know WAY more people who have a relatively high nose bridge from what is thought of an average vietnamese. WAY more people. And they're as pure blooded viet as you can get.
But i wouldn't doubt that the reason for the northern chinese to have, on average, a higher nose bridge to be a result of their relations with the caucasian (middle eastern peoples) who are found to have many genetic similarities. This in a way can explain their relatively larger size, and the nose bride. BUT i have no idea why they didn't get more caucasian eyes along with those nose, when the viets (who don't have any, or very little, caucasion genetic influence) do have the eye type.

I don't know why people would even try to deny that the vietnamese are descendents to the yueh (Viets). It has been written in history, accepted by both the chinese and vietnamese. It has been genetically proven also. We are related to the Minnan and Hakka of the taiwan, and also the Fukienese. All of us who are related (Minnan, Hakka, Fukienese and Viets) have complete sets of Yueh/Viet genes, and has been found to have totally different types of genes compared to the Han. This research has been done by both Chinese and Japanese scientists INDEPENDENTLY, and yet both of the research studies point to the same conclusion. The taiwanese and Viets have Viet blood. We both look mongoloid, so why don't people think our ancestors are mongoloid? If they weren't mongoloid, how did they give birth to so many mongoloids (genetically proven)?
Hafti Sunday, August 25, 2002 at 21:01:25 (PDT)

From what I've seen, Iranians who have chinese admixtures are the best looking of all Iranians. they don't possess the coarse features but is close to looking like hapa.
Chinese mix is beauiful Sunday, August 25, 2002 at 20:59:11 (PDT)

To, the editor;

To avoid this mistake in the future, what do you mean by carriage returns?
Hafti Sunday, August 25, 2002 at 20:41:53 (PDT)

[Hitting the return key. You only need one carriage return at the end of each paragraph and you certainly don't need one before you even start typing your post. Each of those extraneous returns must be deleted by hand to avoid having ugly pages. --Ed]

The last time, I visited Turkey, there were close to 60,000 overseas Chinese living there either as business people or because Turkey is also a primary overseas destination for China's huge Muslim population. All the Muslims in China have connections and grand respect for Turkey. And, they are often the ones who bridge the way for China to the Middle East, economically, culturally, militarily, etc.

I was at a fair once, where the Chinese Muslims was describing how many of China's musical tradition stem from Turkey and Iran. For example, some Chinese musical instruments betray their foreign origins:

"pipa" (Chinese lute) has a similar origin with the Persian "barbat." Likewise, the Turkish-Arabic lute (Ud) is also derivative from "barbat."

"suona" (Chinese shawm) has the same origins as the Turko-Persian "zorna" and Indian "shenai."

"bili" (Chinese double reed oboe) derived from the Central Asian/Iranian "balaban" as well as the Armenian "duduk." In Turkey, it is sometimes called "balaban, or mey."

The Chinese end-blown flute "shao" (like the Japanese "shakuhachi", American Indian "quecha" and Koreans have this flute too) is likely to share origins with the Turko-Persian flute "ney."

The Chinese fiddle "arhu" is from Central Asian origins too. It is similar to the Persian-Turkish fiddle "kemanche."

The Chinese zither "qin" is quite similar to the Persian-Turko "kanun."

There's more, and the Turkish musicologists even told me that Chinese and Uigur musical scales (9) is the same as theirs (also 8 or 9). They can follow Chinese musical orchestras with ease compared to Westerners, Arabs or even Koreans/Japanese.

During the Tang Dynasty, a lot of this new ideas and culture were imported from the West.
the sound of music Sunday, August 25, 2002 at 18:06:46 (PDT)

From Iran, (Aziz)

I am a Chinese who knows Farsi, as I have once lived among the Tajiki (Tashkorgan valley).

Dost man hasti. Chetori? Omidvaram khob bashi? Man khob hastam. :)

You are our friend here. Feel free to come and post again. Iranians are Asian too, in the political, cultural sense. There are many Iranians who migrated to China in the past, and likewise there were also many Chinese who migrated to Iran in the past also. They have recently dug up the remains of many Buddhist monasteries built in Iran during the Ilkhan (Mogol) times. Many Chinese had been transplanted to various parts of the Mogol empires (including Iran) in the past. Sometimes, I feel more akin to Iranians than I do to other Asians, like Coreans.

Actually, I think Syrian Arabs, Kurds, Pashtuns of Afghanistan and Turks (of Turkey) have higher percentage of light colored eyes than the other Middle Easterners.

Iranians (as well as Turks) have more straight form of hair compared to Arabs (many of whom have the Negroid kinky hair). And, generally, Iranians and Turks have lighter skin than Arabs. But, most Iranians and Turks still have black hair (like the East Asians).
Chenastan Sunday, August 25, 2002 at 17:41:38 (PDT)

Coreans are the best. From your colombian friend.
jaime rolon11@aol.com Sunday, August 25, 2002 at 11:43:17 (PDT)

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS