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.]

Also, the genetic studies of northern Chinese tend to focus on the parts that were never tradionally northern China. Traditional northern China is actually central China today, the southern part of this area can be argued as part of southern China. The reason why this is important is because a place like Beijing, now solidly representing north China, was actually the gathering place of non-CHinese. The word for neighborhoods in Beijing is hutong, which literally means where the northern barbarians live. Obviously, any study would be skewed by the redefinition of what is N. China. I think a lot of the studies done by Taiwanese are ideologically motivated.
When a mainland study was done, they found that the north-south divide was true, but they also found discrepancies. The population of Henan, the traditional north China, testes closer to southern Chinese than they do to their neighbors.
Sean Thursday, August 29, 2002 at 09:33:30 (PDT)

Hafti,

How do you explain the fact that the genetic makeup of Africans mimic that of Southeast Asians but not the Europeans if the X chromosome count within the vanadyl sulfate of a typical Vietnamese is twice that much of an Ethiopian but equal to a German Aryan, as you claim? Are you saying that the rhesus simians that migrated to northeast China is the same type of humanoid neanderthal that dominated ancient Asia? I don't get it. You are confusing yourself.
Korean Dude Thursday, August 29, 2002 at 09:33:20 (PDT)

"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"

This is true. The studies presume that the northern Han population is pure and has never changed, which is contrary to historical records. The North was repeatedly ruled by northern nomadic ethnic groups and constantly absorbed massive immigrations while dealing with native slaughter, southward escape, and famine. The non-Chinese population of the north could be as high as 50% at any given time. There wasn't just one ruling foreign group but many confusing competing ethnic groups. When the Mongols took over, for example, 25% of the population of the north China state previously ruled by the Jurchen(ancestors of the Manchus) were the Jurchen. They were all lumped into being Chinese by the new conquerors. This happened over and over so that it is very possible that the majority genes of the average northern Chinese today is of nomadic ancestry. Ironicly, the two most famous foreign rulers, the Mongols and the Manchus, contributed the least genetic heritage to the northern Chinese. All the other groups became assimiliated and were forgotten into history.
Sean Thursday, August 29, 2002 at 09:24:50 (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 also know that site. The funny thing about it is that according at least to this study, both northern and southern Chinese are usually closer to their southern neighboring ethnicities than to their northern neighbors. Northern Chinese have actually closer Y-chromosomal affinity with Cambodians and Malays than with Koreans, although Japanese seem to have more in common with Chinese.
These studies have to be taken with a grain of salt because they are all based on interpretation of raw data, which can be understood by different scientists in different ways. However, it would make sense if Chinese shared more male ancestors with SE Asians, given that the Chinese language and pre-historic culture (as in an agricultural way of life with teh pig and chicken, cultural motifs, ways of eating and food eaten) share much more commonalities with the south. The Koreans' paternal line is most probably due to migrations from the nomadic north, adopting more southerly patterns of culture and Chinese culture as they moved into Korea. The Japanese, maybe because of their extensive mixing with the ancestors of the Ainu,show more southerly connections.
If the findings are accurate, it poses the question of whether the original Chinese moved north from S. China or a proto-historic people moved southward, marrying local women and passing their lines. Archeological and historical evidence for the migration of human populations in Asia seems to suggest a southward push, although before this the whole of Asians seemed to have originated from SE Asia.
Sean Thursday, August 29, 2002 at 09:11:55 (PDT)

you sounds really arrogant and stupid.
southern culture had an huge contribution to chinese civilization.
chinese culture did not come from nowhere and blossoms from time to time. how could you say northern chinese don't give a hoot about southern culture? that's idiotic.

traveller:

i never said EVERY southern chinese is descendant to 'yueh'. Learn to read. the human gene pool is too compliacated to determine who is ancestor of whom.

i don't know. there sure are viets who look like northern chinese, a lot are light skinned and tall...but u have to look at the facial features to be able to see the differences. foreign born northern viets are tall but i don't often see someone who is exceptionally tall.
people from shang hai or suzhou obviously have lighter skin than northern chinese if you've been there. they're even lighter than northern vietnamese (due to weather i think), and w/ the pink pigment. very fine adorablr skin
k Thursday, August 29, 2002 at 02:16:04 (PDT)

sean:

i never said any asian group is pure or mixed. nor did i say something like northern chinese invented chinese civilization. are you able to read?

actually, lots of things like yin yang, five elements, dragon symbol were borrowed from southern culture.
no fun discussing w/people twisting the word around Thursday, August 29, 2002 at 02:02:11 (PDT)

Still part of Tang and Han,

this should put to silence all those who seek to divide the Chinese. In our culture, descent is traced through patrilineally. Since both northern and southern Han are strikingly the same in paternal genes, WE ARE ALL STILL ONE!!!
Hakka CA Thursday, August 29, 2002 at 01:17:45 (PDT)

To, the traveller;

Since you have trouble understanding simple words let me illustrate this for you. I have never said that the modern viets had ancestors who were probably related to the Han, i am saying that the modern viets AREN'T Han AT ALL. For a few simple reasons.

If the Yueh (our ancestors) are direct brothers with the Han, which they probably are, then why would we viets be Han too? Think of it like a family tree (which genetics are looked on in such a matter, hence terms like genetic tree, family tree...etc...). Let the un-named father of us brothers be called father ( un-named mongoloid tribe). The father (mongoloid) helped give birth to two brothers (Han and Yueh), one day they grow up and they separate (i don't know to where, but say one went north and the other went south, hey this can be migration). One brothers name is Han and the other is Yueh, they both come from the same fatherly line which they call Mongoloid (father). NOW, years later Han gets a grudge on Yueh and take Yueh's land. Han rules over Yuehs freedom for a long time, but over time the genetic mix doesn't happen, so Han didn't really infest his brothers genes with his own (proven by genetics here). So years later when Yueh re-establish his land for himself he has children. Now, one child says that they are Han (the traveller says this) and the other says he comes from Yueh (i am saying this).

Who's right? Well, if you had a brother and he had children, do you expect his child to claim you as his father? NO, not unless your a bastard and did something wrong (but in this case nothing happened as proven by genetics, done by americans, japanese and chinese scientists). But undoubtably he'll claim to be descendents to the mongoloid tribe of which both the Yueh and Han called brother. These tribes are both from the mongoloid tribe, but whatever broke off from them are independent of eachothers identity, unless denial sets in (in your case). It's like a tree (mongoloid) which has multiple branches, each are different; a leaf (us viets) falls from branch A (Yueh) can't be considered to have fallen off of branch B (Han), but we can all conclude that this leaf (us viets) came from branch A, and also the tree (mongoloid) itself.

Is that simple enough for you? Just because we are related doesn't mean we are Han, we are Yueh and Yueh we may be. Along the line a descendent or two of the Yueh might claim to be Han descendents (for example the Hakka) but in truth who's biologically the father? The Yueh. And that is it. These people can claim to be our father, but they will only go as far as being a step father (we learn from them, culturally and such, but if there is no mixing then they will never be our father genetically, only influencually).

Your dillusional to the fact that your trying to connect the modern vietnamese with the word Han. If you want to claim your uncle as the father then fine, whatever.

I'm sorry, but it seems that you have a very small mind comparable to a child, so explaining it this way is the most simple way i can explain it to a simple-ton.

And have you ever thought that the Yueh the afrocentric sites are talking about is different from that of the Yueh of the Yangtze? The term Yueh was used to describe barbarians, the europeans were once called Yi for coming first from the south by boat. Doesn't it come to you that the Yueh are called Yueh because they were considered savages by the Han? Anyone who's a savage is a Yueh. Here's a thought, the Shang are said to have Yueh ancestry, but the Yueh kingdom of which nurtured the 100 Yueh tribes only existed after the Shang. This indicates that the Yueh of which are the ancestors of the Shang and the Yueh of which are of the 100 Yueh are different. REMEMBER, the Yueh i'm talking about are INDIGENOUS to the south, but the Yueh those afrocentric sites talk about are from the north along with the Shang. I have not read a liable source of which links the Shang and the Yueh and say these Yueh are the 100 Yueh tribe. Thus logically there should be no connection. Or so i think right now, it's a theory, and it could be wrong. But you yourself have brought up some theories of your own also.

It has been written that VERY LITTLE is known about the Yueh historically, so until you can say anything about the Yueh of the Yangtze being 'negrito' then to me they will be mongoloid. Why should i try to prove to you that the sun will always rise in the morning for atleast another 1000 years when i know it will? Until you can give me doubts, i won't even look into it, all i know is genetically we are Yueh, and that is simple. It is evident in the genetics test (on the Hakka who are also mongoloid), which shows the genes of the taiwanese genes are similar to the ancient viets/yuehs, and that these genes are indigenous. It also shows that the taiwanese and vietnamese are genetically similar, if taiwanese and vietnamese are related, then we are also genetically Yueh, not to mention HISTORICALLY also Yueh. You can deny all you want, but none of your sites have been liable (except for a selective few).
Hafti Thursday, August 29, 2002 at 01:08:55 (PDT)

I am a northern Chinese from Taiyuan county. I have always felt closer to all Han people (even Cantonese) than I do with Hangguoren (Coreans). I don't understand why some posters (of questionable ethnicity) would make the silly assumption and claim that all northern Chinese in America would prefer to socialize with Coreans rather than with Cantonese. It is far from truth.

Anyways, I have checked the genetic calculator and we still have the closest genes with Southern Han-ren. Despite how we look different from each other (only slightly), we still have the same paternal lines.
descendants of the dragon Wednesday, August 28, 2002 at 21:41:49 (PDT)

Sean,

If what you are saying is true, then why do Northern Han have only a 14 genetic distance from the Southern Han, while they have 60 with the Mongols?

This is based on Y chromosome haplotypes (paternal DNA).

You see that both Han groups are from the same paternal lines.

The Turks, Mongols and Manchus (just like the Iranian migrants) were too small to affect the entire Han gene pool. But, that doesn't mean Han people do not have their blood.
feee Wednesday, August 28, 2002 at 21:37:58 (PDT)

Not function right at night.

"...he wouldn't be leaving in Canada!"

"leaving" = "living"

Typo error, sorry.
The TraveLLer Wednesday, August 28, 2002 at 21:15:34 (PDT)

The Manchus surprisingly share more paternal genetic similarity with both northern and southern Han than they do to Mongols, Koreans and Siberians. Heck, they are even close to Southeast Asians (like both Han groups are).

What does this mean? During the Tang, Manchuria was invaded many times. There were even abandoned colonies in modern Jilin dating to the Tang.

Manchus were already a "Sinicized" group before they even set foot in China proper.

If you look at all the Manchu emperors and princes with photos, they look typical Han with deep eye sockets and mustaches and linear form of body shape. This is not Mongol or Altaic trait.
the Manchu puzzle Wednesday, August 28, 2002 at 20:38:17 (PDT)

I checked that genetic calculator, and even the Zhuang and Cambodians in genetic distance are close enough to both the Northern Han and Southern Han, than all 4 are to the Mongols.

It is fairly safe to say that Han and Yueh were probably the same, but broked off some time ago.

Hakkas are a Han group. Language and culture are give aways as proof.
Han and Yueh are the same Wednesday, August 28, 2002 at 20:34:02 (PDT)

Sean,

If you have read Mongol history closely, you will know that the leading general in the breaking down the walled castles of Iran's "Hashashin" (assasin) castles was a Han Chinese general from Chin by the name of Guo Gan. He hated Jurchen rulers and had defected to the Mongols when they invaded Chin.

Under the orders of the Grand Khan Mongke, Guo Gan and over a thousand Han Chinese foot soldier regiments were to join the armies of Hulagu Khan in their invasion of Iran.

The Chinese were used mainly for their expertise in siege warfare and their knowledge of rocket projectiles.

The Mongols initially had trouble relying on horses and cavalry to subdue walled towns of Iran. They used the Chinese expertise in this matter. The Chinese often led the siege and broke through the walls, with the main Mongol-Turkic cavalry in the rear following.

Guo Gan was also in charge of the destruction of Baghdad and Damascus.

Later, Chinese hydraulic engineers tried to repair Baghdad under the khan's orders but to no avail.

The minister of Hulagu Khan was also Han Chinese (Bolad Ching Sang). "Bolad" is a Mongol title for officials. Bolad Ching Sang introduced Chinese paper currency, medicine, art, science to Iran. If you read Jalal ad-Din's Secret History of the Mongols, you find mention of the Chinese who taught him the use of herbal medicine.

Hulagu Khan appointed a Chinese Nestorian as Patriarch of Jerusalem. He hated Muslims and encouraged the Chinese and Uygurs in service to build Buddhist temples all over Iran.

Later khans as well as those descendants of the Chinese and Uygurs settled down in Iran, MARRIED NATIVE CAUCASOID WOMEN and converted to Islam. Many of the Azerbaijani Turks of Iran are probably having descent from them, because that is where the main body of the Hulagu's court settled.

Sources: 1) "Secret History of Mongols." 2) "Mongol Warlords." 3) "Syke's History of Persia."
Don't lie, there were Chinese in Iran Wednesday, August 28, 2002 at 20:31:23 (PDT)

>>>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.<<<

I meant to say "most" genetic distance similarities.
Still part of Tang and Han even to the genes Wednesday, August 28, 2002 at 20:17:52 (PDT)

Sean,

You are right to some degree, but both the Northern and Southern Han share a 95% similar craniality. They only have a genetic distance (paternally) of 14 from each other. Literally, meaning that they indeed have the same fathers.

There were Chinese and Iranians in each other's nations. The Mongols made a policy of transfering entire populations around the globe. That is why you still find pockets of Uigurs even in the deep south of China (Hunan) and you find abandoned Chinese Buddhist churches in northwest Iran (Tabriz). All this took place during Mongol era.

About the ancient Turks: they mixed with both Han Chinese and Sogdians. In Mongolia, they have unearthed many relics showing the existence of Chinese and Sogdian components among the Tu-chueh and ancient Uigurs. They were not necessarily prisoners, many were migrants and merchants who ventured into the grasslands and helped nomads build cities and give them writing forms. The Uigur script has elements of both Syriac and Han Chinese.
Tocharian Wednesday, August 28, 2002 at 20:16:20 (PDT)

sean:

sorry for the confusion.i talked about the penetration of asians to iran, not that i single out northern chinese, because there sure were mongols,southern chinese,... who had access to iran. my point is the interbreeding is not merely geographical reasons thus it is wider than From Iran thought.

northern chinese are as pure as their southern brothers could be. no one is more pure than another. yes, they've been heavily mixed w/ mongol, manchu, or turk, but aren't those people asians as well? the caucasian mixing theory has no validity.
kay Wednesday, August 28, 2002 at 19:46:14 (PDT)

the traveller

i dont give a hoot about the debate anymore. just here to point out the site i provide did mention about th e yueh, unlike wat you said that it didn't.
k Wednesday, August 28, 2002 at 19:35:50 (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,
Well now, I was wondering why you had put all this effort into trying to make your case Hafti; That we are related to Whites. Give it up my friend. Just be proud of who you are. You're just as good as anyone else, no better, no worse. You don't need anybody's validation. Besides it's really not us that need convincing, it's the Whites. Why don't you show them your findings?
Foot man Wednesday, August 28, 2002 at 17:10:10 (PDT)

Han is usually associated with the "classical" racial type found mostly in South Korea. (I don't go into the details of differences between its subtypes "Korean", "Shandonger" etc.) But why is this one race, but two or more (including Tungus) languages?

-Probably they all spoke once proto-Korean, then the Amur-Sakhalin people became Altaicized, and the Chinese became Daicized. BTW, they should call the whole language group not Sino-Tibetan, but rather Daio-Tibetan.

It would not surprise me if the Han people's patriarchy was originally a Turkic one, and the Han wouldn't have dared the step out of matriarchy if there hadn't been the reknown influence from the progressive West.
rare stuff Wednesday, August 28, 2002 at 15:07:18 (PDT)

Hafti posted:

"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."

Underline to me where in the genetic study mentioning the modern Vietnamese are the same as the "Viet Muong." You are so obscure and delusion, Hafti. Viet Muong is an minority group in Vietnam, that's all to it. The author had mentioned about Vietnam, but what didn't he conclude the modern Vietnamese as a whole, but rather only recognized the "Viet Muong."

BTW, would you please define the word "delusion"? It fits your thinking process.
I'm still waiting for the comparing genetic study(ies) between the Muong, modern Vietnamese, and Modern Chinese. Also, the 30% of Vietnamese had Sinodontoid. And don't give me those cheap websites, such as advocating for Toursism or Government site. Those cheap websites also publish that the modern Vietnamese were the descendant of 100 eggs. Show me the scientific literature websites, not the myth or legend advocate. Man, it seems like hafti is running around without any solid material to backup his thinking. It's been nearly a week already, and yet nothing has been posted by Hafti. Stop dancing, show me a good scientific study. I'm still waiting...

Here's a funny thought, Vietnam's a country of poverty, and yet we have someone concluded that 30% of Vietnamese have sinodontoid when, in reality, the Vietnamese government cannot keep tract of its people. Wow, that's amazing how they can come up with that study! That tells how narrowed is Hafti's brain. Or is that a stage of delusion?

Waiting and waiting...
The TraveLLer Wednesday, August 28, 2002 at 13:14:04 (PDT)

Who usually ranks in international beauty pageants? Any statistic will show it's filipinas.
tony adelprad@lehman.com Wednesday, August 28, 2002 at 12:13:49 (PDT)

To, I have read some;

Actually, the HLA tests don't focus on just the father or mother... It focuses on total genes...
Hafti Wednesday, August 28, 2002 at 11:58:16 (PDT)

To, The TraveLLer;

You going dillusinal? The study that K brought up, which is probably the same as mine had FOREIGN sources of which backed it up. It had close to 30 books, and of which close to half of those books were from Japanese scientists...

And that research was done on the Minnan and the Hakka. These groups combined are 91% of taiwans total population, so no this wasn't done on a minority group.

Stop going towards denial, it's pathetic.

Here's the thing that bothers me. You keep on thinking that the Han are the only monogloid race there is. In fact the Han are just a branch of monogloid asians, and that's a fact! The Hans came from the north, and the Yueh from the south.

And your "we're all the same" argument has been posted through an attempt to connect the Yueh with the Han! LOL, you were the same guy who said that we came from the northern chinese, and now you changed your word again! Admit it, all you want is the viets to be han and that's it, you don't care if they're from the north or south, even if they're not genetically connected to the original han.

The definition of Yueh is the people who lived in Fukien at around 500 BC. The Han lived around northwestern china at that time, and they claimed to be descendents to the Yellow Emperor.

Your contradicting your words, you said that the northern viets look like the northern chinese. And now your saying that we're not from the northern chinese, because we're from the han and the han came from two different places? Foolish i would say.

http://www.wufi.org.tw/eng/linmalie.htm
That is extremely credible. You can see that in it there is some separatist setiment, but the HLA genetic tests don't lie. The research has been done by the conclusion of 25 references, most of which are Japanese. Tell me this, are the japanese and taiwanese in on a conspiracy to make their scientists consider the Southern chinese Yueh and the northern Chinese Han? If you think that then your a fool.

For one, i do not believe there were two areas of Han origin. It might be suggesting that these two places of origin produced two different types of people, which later joined to make what the Han are today. But in no way would it show that the vietnamese are Han. If i had a table, and i took off the table top, would the legs be a table by itself? Same with the Han, if they are what you say they are, which is a mix, then we the viets who are just an ancestor to them, by ourselves (which we are) wouldn't be a han (table).

I KNOW we viets are mongoloid, BUT we are not Han. I don't care what our brothers named themselves, i'm not going to adopt a brothers name. Who ever denied that we have common ancestry to a point? If you go far enough we all end up in africa (genetically supported by Y Chromosome tests and Mitochondrian DNA).

Think of it like this, I am John (Han), and my brother is Willis (Yueh). We are both from the same family (Mongoloid), we at one time lived in the same area (i don't know where). When we get older we move out to different places, one created a fishing company called Willis Fishery, the other created a nuclear power plant he calls John Nuke Inc... Now each are different entities, they share common ancestry, but are John and Willis the same people just because they are from the same family? So are the Yueh and Han the same just because they are from the Mongoloid peoples? NO, we are related, but i am not Han, i gave myself a name and so be it. Now that is the if the Yueh and Han originally were one. If they were one the original group should be called Yue-Han, or Han-Yue; and not as you say just Han.

YOU were trying to prove to me that the modern vietnamese came from northern china remember! Don't change your story now.

Plus the HLA genetic tests, either done by the japanese or chinese, shows that the northern and southern chinese are genetically distinct from eachother. This shows separate ancestry from eachother. You once said that your family came from northern china long ago, and that your keeping your family pride (this was when you told me to get on my knees and eat rice with my hands to feel closer to my ancestors). Well if your northern chinese, then your genetically different then most of us viets, and YES i feel good about that. I'm not genetically related to you, and if i was i would run fears of catching the disease you have now, DENIAL and IDIOTIC CONCLUSION.

The Yueh are considered aboriginal/indigenous to the area.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=80225&tocid=0&query=yueh

"From the above data, at least biologically, Hakka is primarily
originated from southern Mongoloid groups rather than from northern or
central China (Chung-yuan, He-nan) as many believe."

Notice he used the word 'mongoloid' rather then 'han'? Being mongoloid doesn't mean your han, but being han does mean your mongoloid. The mongoloid tree of humans is much more diverse then just containing the han. And actually the southern han are just another group. If you look at the diagram you would see that the southern han are those who have been considered to have han blood in them, and they are the closest to the han.

"All these biological gene studies, Hakka in Taiwan or
China are primarily not the descendants of Northern Mongoloids but
primarily descendants of original southerners."
http://home.i1.net/~alchu/hakka/toihak0.htm

The hakka (which are considered by scientists to be genetically the same as the minnan/hoklo) are descendents of the original southerners (the only original southerner of china were the Yueh, go any more south and you'll be at vietnam). Notice that it didn't mention anything about just being southers, but ORIGINAL (meaning indigenous, and that means the Yueh) southerner.

"L.L Cavalli-Sforza, P. Menozzi and A. Piazza published a book
" The History and Geography of Human Genes" in 1994 by Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey."

From that book, which is from an AMERICAN doctor it is written also that the Hakka are descendents from the south.

" All these biological gene studies, Hakka in Taiwan or
China are primarily not the descendants of Northern Mongoloids but
primarily descendants of original southerners."

Conclusion? The sites are REVELENT. Why? They have American, Japanese, and Chinese researchers, each of which did separate research on their own and yet come up with the SAME conclusion. That the hakka and minnan come from indigenous populations of SE China long ago. DON'T DENY, it's bad.

We MIGHT be related to the modern han in the sense that most of the southerners have ancient Viet blood. But we aren't related to the fact that our blood has no Han influence, or very little at all.

The definition of Han is VERY clear, the original peoples of the chinese civilization who came from the Yellow emperor. The Yueh aren't considered descendents to the Yellow emperor.

You keep on mentioning the last theory, where there was a supposed second origin of han. But your forgeting to mention the theory before that which is.

"B) The unique migration route never existed. Nor is there any
indication of the existence of other routes to south."

There has been a theory which suggests this, maybe you should consider it before your so sure the viets are Han.
Hafti Wednesday, August 28, 2002 at 11:39:50 (PDT)

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS