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.]

if mongoloid and malay polynesians are both seperate races then why are filipinos classified both as mongoloid and malay polynesian? can anyone clarify this?
questions asked Sunday, September 01, 2002 at 08:48:20 (PDT) [172.159.175.111]

"Think of it like this, even if the nomadic populations grew up to 50% at one point, there is still a high percentage of Han blood that should survive. That should be atleast 50% of the original Han genes left, but then why do the Yueh descendents (or whoever claims to be) share none of any of the characteristics distinct to the Yueh descendents?"

hafti, You don't even know how genetics work. First of all, it's impossible to share none of the genetic markers for any people. All the genes of the human population are shared by every people, only the frequencies differ. Scientists are not proposing on how people are related or apart because each group has distinct genes. Northern and southern Chinese share a lot of genes in common and there aren't specific genes of anything that cuts a line between populations. Its only the frequencies that are different. This is true for any two groups being compared. Different frequencies can be due to many factors: environment, inter-marriage, genetic drift, or random drift. You don't even know what you're talking about and you keep on posting stuff on knowledge you can't even master. You're an idiot.

And they don't have ancestor record in north China. Historical records show that various non-Chinese groups in large numbers were Sinified in successive waves and together the effect could be as large as 50% or even greater of foreign ancestry for northern Chinese.
I'm really sick of these posts of yours which contribute nothing at all. You just keep rambling on and on and on and on about stuff you don't even know well enough to debate. Go back to arguing about teeth and feet as you did before.And get a life.
Sean Saturday, August 31, 2002 at 20:18:01 (PDT) [68.14.94.53]

"Ancient northern china is around huang he river. northward are territories of the tangut, jurchen, turk.... but Henan is certainly NOT what northchina is limited to.
k"

Look at the map again. Read history again. The original area of Chinese civilization (the Xia, Shang) is exactly in Henan province, and later the culture expanded to nearby areas. North China never included inner Mongolia or Manchuria ,and places like Beijing,Shanxi, Gansu were basically frontiers. Even the Qin people, who unified China, weren't considered wholly Chinese by the "real Chinese" kingdoms. Most historians would concede that the southern Chu, Wu, Yueh states were not the same kind of Chinese as the Chentral Plains Chinese, but if you look back into accounts both the western and eastern flanks in north China were at one time considered non-Hua (the ethnic name of the Chinese). The Yi in Shandong were suspected to be related to the Yueh or Viets.
Chinese civilization never included the whole of the Yellow River, which twisted and winded as it flowed to the sea. Traditional north China, to its greatest extent, was in between the Yellow River and the Yangtze River, which is central China today.
Also, populations in mainland Asia tended to have a north-to-south migration pattern. It is well-documented that the speakers of the Austroasiatic, Austronesian, Thai-Kadai, and Mon-Khmer language families all had their original homeland in southern China. All of these language families still have their language isolates still living and breathing in one part of southern China or another, existing as small groups. It is also not too unlikely to assume that the genetic center of the Hua, the Chinese, moved southward due to continous population pressures from the north. In southern China, ancient Chinese culture, cuisine, customs, and language peculiarities are preserved (such as referring to dear ones with "ah" plus their name --ancient north Chinese slang/ It would seem hard to explain that southern aboriginals adopted northern slang speach while the northern populations lost it, along with a whole lot of other things.).
Sean Saturday, August 31, 2002 at 19:44:50 (PDT) [68.14.94.53]

To yayati:

Really, I thought Aryans were originally from Persia and Central Asia? Both groups (not to mention many Arabs) look closer to being "pure" Aryan than most Indians (both South and North Indian/Pakistani) I've seen. Not saying that it is a good or bad thing, just an observation.

To k:

If you're talking about in the US, MOST of the Indonesian and Malaysian immigrants in the US are actually ethnic Chinese rather than the indigenous Malays; that might explain why they seem to look alot like CHinese. Also agree with ya about the Viets, I think us Viets are neither completely Southeast Asian (Khmer, Lao) nor Northeast Asian (Chinese, Korean), but somewhere in between. I personally would not want to be seen as simply another red-headed stepchild of China.
Brahma Bull Saturday, August 31, 2002 at 09:56:46 (PDT) [209.179.222.174]

If you read alot of these articles you'll notice these people trying to get across the idea of 'two' han origins. BS. The Han are those who originated from the Yellow Emperor. Many chinese are trying to make the Yueh of the past as 'Han' as possible to try to make them less barbaric, this is of course close to impossible, as the word Yueh is synonamous with barbarian.
Hafti Saturday, August 31, 2002 at 01:29:50 (PDT) [142.59.36.71]

http://www.asiawind.com/hakka/hakpapers.htm

Asiawind is a hakka community website. It even accepts that with the

"They continued to recognize themselves as Yueren or Guangdongren, showing a sense of belonging to the province rather than their "culture"."

"If so, then Hakka may have to be put together with Gan and perhaps also with Yue."

If you look at the references for this, most of the stuff came from Stanford and Hong Kong, nothing which would be pro-independence for taiwan. The traveller shouldn't have so many doubts, as this has been researched by Japanese, mainland chinese, taiwanese, and even american scientists. Simple.

"Hakka people are now found to share the same origin, same genetics and same language as most Chinese groups in the South, and cannot be distinguished by their migration history, molecular biology and linguistics."

Isn't that just simple? The southern chinese can not be distinguished by migrational history from other southern chinese. This only means that migrations have not had a significant effect on their genes today.

This article shows how the hakka can mistake their identity of being the only pure han group. And how this has effected the way they thought of the cantonese, of whom the hakka thought were Yueh and by such dirty. The cantonese in tern call the hakka barbarians. If this was politically motivated it would have been pointed towards the Han that the hakka and cantonese share the common Han root, but why does it point out that there is a possibility that they came from the south? This shows that even the writer is stunned but knows the facts, he doesn't mention anything about the similarities with the Han.

This is resources backing me up. This has been backed up by research done by mainland chinese, and americans mainly. So i doubt that there would be any political motivation to help taiwan separate as the traveller insists. That taiwan would fix these results. If what the traveller is saying is true, is it possible for the taiwanese geneticist to fix all the research done independently by the americans, the mainland chinese and also the japanaese also? I doubt the taiwanese have enough power to do so.
Hafti Saturday, August 31, 2002 at 01:17:44 (PDT) [142.59.36.71]

To, the traveller;

Do you find it to be a coincident that haploids like A33-Cw10-B58-DRB1*03-DQB1*02 can only be found in large number among the populations of which live in the areas of which the Yueh once lives, this gene is close to non-existant in the north. Many genes which are like this can be found among those who are said to be descendents to the Yueh and those who live in the areas of which the Yueh once lived (even if this population wasn't Yueh to start with, after years of mixture a certain percentage of the Yueh genes might have been passed down in the bulk). Is it a coincident that these genes can not be found in the areas of which the Yueh weren't recorded to have settled and not in the areas deprived of the people who are said to be descendents to them? No coincidence at all in my mind.

Some might still say it's a coincident, but i find that to be highly unlikely. Those people who go to migration for comfort saying that these 'Yueh' genes are probably really 'Han' genes which moved there later on are dillusional. Has migrational routes been so convenient to the point where all the 'true han' left the north and didn't pass on these genes to their supposed children, while occupying all the territory of which was Yueh and somehow got those 'han' genes into the gene pool of those who claim to be Yueh descendents. It sound rediculous that anyone would find comfort in lies like that.

The human genome has been cracked. We understand what 60% of what the genes do, that is 40% we don't know. It has been suspected that in a few more hundred years those genes will also be understood. But with the 60% we know, we can conclude that those genes are so far distinct to the south of china and southeast asia.

Close to 80% of the taiwanese gene pool is from the Yueh (or genes only found in southern china and among those who claim ancestry to the Yueh), is it a coincidence that these genes are seldom found in people who are surely Han? No, i find it not likely.

These genes are found only in the areas of the south, and from those who claim ancestry to the Yueh. This is indicating that these genes orinated from the Yueh. I find it highly unlikely that these genes are truly Han, when it is not found in anyone else but the people who are said to be Yueh and where the Yueh used to live.
Hafti Saturday, August 31, 2002 at 00:29:07 (PDT) [142.59.36.71]

I'm just wondering, do the Filipinos have Spanish and Mexican blood in them? Some of them do look like they have it. I know many Coreans, Japanese and Chinese like to point out the fact that they are more pure and resisted race mixing compared to Filipinos.
no Corona Friday, August 30, 2002 at 18:31:24 (PDT) [64.130.235.33]

rare stuff,

I once read about the Kets too. Their lingua has often been compared to Sino-Tibetan. But, they live deep up in Siberia among Turkic, Tungus and Eskimo tribes.

Perhaps, they were related to ancient Chinese and Tibetans but migrated up to Siberia? Or, the ancestors of all Sino-Tibetans had come from the north (Siberia) but got pushed south by Turko-Mongols?

There is also a tribe (Burushaski)living among the Pashto in northern Pakistan whose lingua is also now compared to Sino-Tibetan.

North Caucasus languages (Chechen, Abkaz, Adegey, etc.) and Basque might have a linkage with Sino-Tibetan too from the very distant past.
not Indo-European nor Ural-Altaic Friday, August 30, 2002 at 18:20:42 (PDT) [64.130.235.33]

To the post on the top (i'm not sure if your "Will the real anthropologist please stand up" or not);

"Yes i do believe that at one point the Yueh and Han were the same. But still, if i had a brother who's name John, and i am named Milton; should my sons claim to be descendents/sons to my brother John instead of me? We all know that we came from the same family, but of different branches from the same tree. A leaf that falls off of branch A never be considered to have fell off of branch B. But we all agree that both branches are of the same tree, and that leaf itself was of the same tree. What i believe is that, even IF the Han and the Yueh are related, the Han have no right to call us Han because genetically proven we are Yueh. It's like being an uncle and trying to get your nephew to call you father, even if the nephew does, the farthest you can go is be his step father (one who guides and gives advice), gentically you will never be the true genetic father. He may love you to the point of considering you his father, and may even deceive his own children to call themselves sons to what they should call uncle. Plus with your type of thinking we can go back so far we will all be related; Blacks, Whites, Jews, Asians, or whatever..."

That's what i said, and that is why the Yueh aren't Han and the Han aren't Yueh.
And never have i said that the Han did not have an effect on our genes today. I was saying that the Yueh had the majority of the effects.

To, Kendall;

Your telling me to get a life? I'm already on a Hockey Team, and that's enough for now. Seems like you have nothing else to do then tell people to get out more. Seems like you need a life, you know that replying to this kind of stuff doesn't even take up 15 minutes of my time, so it's a pass time which takes up very little time. If it takes more time on your side it's just because your slow at typing.

To, k;

I'm sure the Javanese are Malay/Polynesian. But they might have some Han blood in the past.

To, the traveller;

Please give a direct quote on when i said that the dong son are the main ancestors to the modern viets. Give the date also, i don't remember saying this. All i ever said was that the Yueh had the main gene influence while the dong son and the han had some influence but not as much as the Yueh does.

Note: It's pathetic on how people keep on saying that migrations and such have a big factor. But think of it like this, why does the genes which are Yueh are only attributed to those who live in the areas of where the Yueh once live, and those who claim Yueh ancestry? Has migrations been so convenient that ALL the ancient Hans wiped out the genes they used to have in the north, and brought it all to the south of where the Yueh lived? It's just impossible, it's unlogical to think that way. It's NOT a coincident that only the people who live in the areas of the Yueh and those who are historically connected have these genes. It is because these genes are local to the area, it is indegineous and cannot be found in other aread. That is why it is indegineous. People who have a majority of the genes of which are indegineous come from indegineous populations. There is no conspiracy to trick us, and genetics don't lie.
Hafti Friday, August 30, 2002 at 16:33:32 (PDT) [142.59.36.71]

To, the traveller;

This debate is tedious and leading no where. You seem to be holding double standards, you want me to bring proof that the Yueh were mongoloid, BUT you yourself have not brought up any proof that the Yueh weren't mongoloid.

Until you can prove without an afrocentric site (which is extremely biased) then what is there to counter? NOTHING, so from here on i don't have to prove anything.

You either believe or not. You can go and believe whatever you want, i am here to present a debate, and if you can't provide a revelent standpoint to continue on there is nothing to debate, through default i win. Like the old saying says "believe whatever rocks your boat".
Hafti Friday, August 30, 2002 at 16:13:34 (PDT) [142.59.36.71]

People have said that northern chinese ppl look different than southern chinese. How so? I mean how are the facial features any different? I can't really tell a difference.
thai girl Friday, August 30, 2002 at 13:31:58 (PDT) [216.221.81.97]

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS