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.]

All those studies that point the Southern Chinese to a southern ancestry (with Viets and Malays) have only focused on mtDNA (maternal genes). The Y chromosomes would indicate a different picture. I still think both the northern and southern Han groups share similar Y chromosomes with Southeast Asians than they do with Mongols.
I have read some Wednesday, August 28, 2002 at 02:09:10 (PDT)

You guys, I found a really cool site that measures one group's Y chromosome (paternal genetics) through the use of a genetic calculator.

I am Cantonese, and guess which Asian group I share the least genetic distance with? I wouldn't be surprised...it is the Northern Han group. We only have a distance of 14 from each other. We are each other's closest relative (paternally). Our other closest relatives would be the Manchus, Hui (who are really Han Chinese Muslims) and other Southeast Asians. In the other Central Asian grouping, the Dungan (term for Hui in Russian) is closest with Uigurs. And, Uigurs are closest with Uzbeks.

here are the links:

http://www26.brinkster.com/archived/calc/haplo_profiles.asp?popid=46&dbname=oceanics

and

http://www26.brinkster.com/archived/calc/index.asp

HAVE FUN...
Still part of Tang and Han heritage even to the genes Wednesday, August 28, 2002 at 02:02:21 (PDT)

k,

You might need to read this before you conclude that every Southern Chinese is a "Yueh" descendant. Link: http://www.asiawind.com/hakka/

"Different theories about origin of Hakka

Since Professor Lo Hsiang Lin 羅香林 (Luo Xiang Lin) started research on the origin of Hakka, many theories have been developed. Basically, it can be divided into the following theories:
1. Han emigrants from the north
2. Indigenous southern She 畬族 / Yue 越族
3. Xiongnu 匈奴descendents

I would say all of them are correct, yet none alone explains the origin of Hakka.

The confusion is escalated by the different definition of 'north and south', and 'ancient and recent'. There is a research project using DNA typing to compare Hakka people with other southern Chinese people today. The conclusion from such study is Hakkas were not from the north, but indigenous to the south. The problem of this type of research is in typing modern people we cannot ascertain who are really the southern Chinese because many of them were also from the north, Hakka or non-Hakka. Even comparing with other Southeast Asian ethnic groups may have the same problem, because many are descendents of ancient northern Chinese or related to them through inter-ethnic marriages. Unless each subject has a detailed genealogy to verify his/her ancestry, it would be inconclusive.

Some claim Hakka as "pure" Han people. But pure Han really does not exist. Recent archaeological studies have shown that China had multiple centers of civilization, developed rather independently of each other. Yangshao 仰韶 (Henan), Banpo 半坡 (Shaanxi), Hongshan 紅山 (Liaoning) , Liangzhu 良渚 (Jiangsu/Zhejiang), Sanxingdui 三星堆 (Sichuan), Longshan 龍山 (Shandong) all eventually merged into the Han culture. Han people are thus the integrated composite of several different tribes. In a way, the definition of Han is just as difficult as the definition of American. Hakkas as Han cannot be ethnically pure. Hakka have been at the interface of ethnic conflicts for many dynasties. Genetically speaking, some Hakka people have clearly inherited some non-Han features such as wavy hair and high nose bridge. Hakka must have incorporated these features from the different ethnicities along the migration path through out the 2000 years of history. The characteristic of Hakkas can only be recognized by the dialect and the adamant preservation of ancient Chinese custom."

This, however, illustrated my point, in which there are many theories need to be considered, before calling today's southern Chinese were the descendant of the "yueh" tribes. What really is "Yueh"? It seems like the "yueh" and the "Han" are the same, only through timely formation of each dynasty throught certain tribes made up the name "Han" or "yueh". If Hafti said that there were 100 Yueh tribes, could that account that all the Yueh were the same origin? Is there a such thing as a pure Yueh? Less likely there is a such race. All the "Yueh" thing is basically a political movement. That is all to it.

This is the problem with Hafti, he thought the Chinese and Vietnamese population would remain living in the same place after >2000 years. Contrary to his belief, the Red River Delta had a change of population over 2500 years ago, the place was once inhabited by the Malayo-polynesian and now by the Mongoloid race. If there's no such thing as population migratory, he wouldn't be leaving in Canada!
The TraveLLer Tuesday, August 27, 2002 at 23:52:00 (PDT)

Vietnamese and IndoChinese have very obvious jutting jaws, and it's kinda ugly even when from far.
Ma Ying Tuesday, August 27, 2002 at 20:11:23 (PDT)

actually, northern chinese don't give a hoot about southerners. southern cultural disputes seem a petty form of various insecurities. that's why northerners never speculate on southern culture, origins, etc. it almost always works the other way around.

And yes, the nose bridge thing is true. It's pretty obvious.
chinatown Tuesday, August 27, 2002 at 19:58:56 (PDT)

To "Yueh are not 100% Negrito":

"Han is a name given to a northern mongoloid race."

Wrong! Click on this website to see the Map of the Han dynasty during 100 BC: http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/china/ch03.html

Further, the Han came from the central plain of China, not the northern part of China. From here, they migrated to the East, East, South and North, thus possibly forming two Han origins like what Hafti’s link stated, one is mixed and the other stay pure, see the below quote for Hafti.

"no comment. i've seen both mongol and han and the truh is viets(northern) for the most part don't look like mongol nor Han."

Gee, how can you distinguish which one the different between the Han and Mongolian without any genetic paternal evidence? As far as the northern Vietnamese, many look like Northern Chinese, Japanese or Korean if they were born in the US, Canada, and other western countries, how can you explain this? Most northern Vietnamese kids are taller, lighter-skinned, and bigger bone structure than their parents if they were raise in a western country, how’s that? Just compare a Vietnamese that is born in a western country to a Vietnamese that is born in Vietnam, the two have different bone and facial structure, how’s that? Explain please.

*************************

Hafti posted:

"Like i said, CAN YOU prove that Yueh were black without an afrocentric site? NO, so try!"

Funny, but nothing had proved that the original "Yueh" were a mongoloid group. So the ball is on you to prove that the "Yueh" are anything but light-skinned. Your turn now, not mine...I'm still waiting.

“Where does it say in the genetics test that the northern chinese are a mongolian subgroup? Haven't you checked the Y Chromosome tests where the Y Chromosome is definitely shared, but the mongols have a lesser frequency of it, showing some intermixing but different ancestry (through the father).”

Tell me, why did the Chin dynasty built the Great Wall of China? Could it be that in the old day the Chinese (real Chin/Han) try to block the northern mongoloid from invading their territory? Surely, the Chin/Han considered the northern mongoloid as a barbarian race, but why? Are they different from the Chin/Han? Could 90 years of Mongolian and 300 years of Manchurian controlling China cause a migration of the original people? Gee, it happened in the Red River Valley, where the mongoloid replaced the Malayo-polynesian. Human’s history is all about migration, so why can’t that be true? Are the modern Northern Chinese the same as 3000 years ago? Yet, nothing had been concluded, and you are definite? Seems to me you have one dimension of thinking. BTW, you still have not told me how is that the Dong Son were the main genetic contributor to the modern Vietnamese? Yet, you told me they thrive, what type of thrive? Historical thrive, political thrive, genetic thrive or what? Lets spark your brain here a little, the Dong son were a Malayo-polynesian, whereas the Modern Vietnamese are a Mongoloid race, how are they related? Further, your website stated this:

“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.

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).”

It didn’t state what you proclaim, but rather stating that the “Hanren” (Han) were split into 2 at the Yangtze River. There is no mentioning of the “Yueh”, as you insisted. So I would believe the “Yueh” might be the local aborigines.
"The hoklo, viets and hakka still hold the full sets of Yueh genes as described by scientists. Even though genetics is new, this stuff can be examined by this stage. Evidence is evidence, when technology advances there will only be even more evidence."

Actually, the study is still in debate. Dr. Lin (Lam) could be a “Yueh centric” (using your twisted logic, i.e.: afro centric argument) or wants an independent state of Taiwan. Did you read this link? http://www.taiwan.com.au/Soccul/People/Findings/20010430.html

“However, an anthropologist from Qinghua University, Lee Kuan-di, questioned how the study defined Taiwanese and Fujianese.
"How the study defines Taiwanese would make the result different. Taiwanese ancestors came to Taiwan at different times. Don't forget that the Dutch and Spanish stayed in Taiwan for a couple of decades. Did the study take this into account?" Lee asked. ”

*********************************
K,

The genetic material that you posted from the Taiwanese is still questioned by others. It seems that that genetic study serves as a political background for Taiwanese to gain independent from China, Who knows? Click on:

A) http://www.duke.edu/web/cis/pass/pdf/warpeaceconf/p-hsieh.pdf
B) http://mail.tku.edu.tw/cfshih/deault2_99-06-18.htm
C) http://www.taiwanfirstnations.org/mem.html

The links that I posted tells you that Taiwan's desperate to get away from mainland China. Further, if the genetic study is true, the Hakka and Minnan who lived in Taiwan are a minority group of people. So all to this is about a small number of people that the study was based on rather than a comparing study of the whole Taiwan population. What is the percentage of the modern Taiwanese population belongs to the Han's descendant? This has not been established yet. Case in point, this might be for political purpose.
The TraveLLer Tuesday, August 27, 2002 at 16:16:58 (PDT)

"Raping, marriage btw chinese official w/ local women hence a proportion of east asian mixed iranians."

The bad thing about the Internet is that is allows everyone to put their two confused cents in the infobank. Chinese never conquered Iran nor the other way around. There have been Middle Eastern merchants, migrations, and officials in China, but not enough to make a noticeable genetic difference. Northern Chinese are heavily mixed with nothern nomadic tribes though, who swept southward continously just as Mexicans cross the border today in the U.S. Those nomads included people who are extinct and who have been absorbed into the Han ethnic group. Among them are the ancestors of Turks and Mongols. The fact that northern Chinese have a lot of Turkic blood doesn't really mean that they have a lot of Caucasian genes however, because the ancient Turks looked pretty much like the Mongols today. They only got more Caucasian-looking as they moved ever westward.
There is a study that compared pre-historic and Chinese with modern Chinese and found southern Chinese to more resemble the pre-historic northern Chinese. There has always been cultural continuity, so it is unlikely that a new people swept into northern China to replace the pre-historic northern Chinese. It is also unlikely the difference is due to gentic change because the time is short for that. It is likely that the change came about through migrations from the north of China. This would be a slap in the face to many northern Chinese who consider they are the direct inheritors of Chinese civilization and purer than southern Chinese.
Sean Tuesday, August 27, 2002 at 13:02:21 (PDT)

To, the traveller;

http://www.chsource.org/Jing.htm

That refers to the Jing to have once called themselves viet. And are descendents to the vietnamese. Anything else you want to deny?
Hafti Tuesday, August 27, 2002 at 12:39:11 (PDT)

To, high nose doesn't always equal beauty;

It is said that the northern chinese have influence from caucasions (caucasions like the arabs or some other population from the middle east) long long ago, to the point of it not being written down, so having caucasion blood is part of being han.

And i was saying that the vietnamese i know by average have higher nose bridges then what is thought of a vietnamese.
Hafti Tuesday, August 27, 2002 at 11:23:47 (PDT)

To, high nose doesn't always equal beauty;

I like average nose bridges, some people are too big. Northern vietnamese seem to be at average, along with the taiwanese.
Hafti Tuesday, August 27, 2002 at 11:14:15 (PDT)

To, yueh;

I don't understand why the traveller is in denial. He is so eager to connect the viets with the han, that he's dillusional.

The word Han refers to those who once lived in the north. If they are a subgroup of mongols then that still doesn't change the fact that they are han. They are still han, but now with genetic proof they have some similarities with the mongols. I can't understand why he doesn't know that.

The Viets (jing, kinh, yueh, or whatever name you want to give us) once roamed southern asia with no han influence. The Viets have been proven genetically to be the ancestors to the modern Viets (us today), the Minnan/Hoklo (taiwanese majority), Hakka (they deny it, but they can't lie to themselves forever), and the fujianese. The Viets and taiwanese hold complete sets of Yueh genes, isn't that simple?

OMG, i don't understand what's so hard to understand...
Hafti Tuesday, August 27, 2002 at 11:12:54 (PDT)

To, the traveller;

Your a bit dillusional aren't you? You know NOTHING about the vietnamese. And it really shows. You once used the term Dong Son Vi and thought that it's an actual culture of vietnam, NO it is Dong Son, and another one would be Son Vi and they are distict of eachother. What about when you said that there was no such thing as Nguyen before independence? Oh and when you said there's no such thing as the type of feet where the second toe is longer then the first, it's actually an incredibly common type of feet, as anyone who's viet in here and i'll bet you'll get a lot of replies confirming this is TRUE. Am i now confident that you know anything about the vietnamese? NO. And this is why...

"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."

LOL, the Viet Muong aren't even a minority group. Viet Muong is actually a term describing anyone who is Viet or Muong. If you consider the Kinh (Viet) to be a minority group then your a fool. Because the Viet Muong group includes the Viets (vietnams largest ethnic group) and the Muong (second largest ethnic group).

"Viet - Muong (which consists of Viet, Muong, Chut, etc.)"

http://www.nhandan.org.vn/english/history/20000902.html

Read that, it might help. The Viet Muong is a term that connects all that is categorized under the same language. And yes the vietnamese language is under Viet Muong. SO YES that source did speak of the Viets! Again, which hospital do you work for? You don't seem to be fit for even the job of a nurse, this is simple.

Here, since your french and seem to have extensive trouble reading english; reading it in french might help.

http://www.vietnamtourism.com/f_pages/vietnam/introduction/peo_customs/info_national.htm

Oh and Jing is a translation of Kinh. So that site did mention the viets. SO DON'T LIE. Jing = Kinh.

VIETNAMESE (KINH, GIN, JING, CHING, VIET, ANNAMESE)

http://www.christusrex.org/www3/ethno/Viet.html

That gives quick names to the viets in different languages and different versions of the names, it's not complete but it does include Jing.

http://www.vnnews.com/coci/0104/intro.htm

Of which the Viet-Muong Group includes four ethnic groups: the Chut, Kinh, Muong and Tho

http://vietnamtourism.com/e_pages/vietnam/54dantoc/tho.htm

http://vietnamtourism.com/e_pages/vietnam/54dantoc/chut.htm

http://vietnamtourism.com/e_pages/vietnam/54dantoc/muong.htm

http://vietnamtourism.com/e_pages/vietnam/54dantoc/kinh.htm

Learn about the 4 main groups that make up the Viet Muong before you claim the Viet Muong to be only minority groups. Viet Muong includes the Viets. The Chut are a bit dark, maybe there were some influence from other ethnics, but it could be weather, so don't start saying stuff like they can't be related. It doesn't matter, when the genetic site said Viet Muong they meant the people who are included in the group, they are all related to a point, maybe not to close but to a point. And the scientists know very well that the Kinh are the main groups of the Viet Muong, if they didn't mean to include them they would have said so. But saying that the Jing are related to the Hakka says it all. Jing is equivalent to Kinh. Proven by a site i gave above. READ...
Hafti Tuesday, August 27, 2002 at 11:03:44 (PDT)

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS