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.]

yayati,
You might have something regarding the Aryan invasion theory, as I have heard other folks (non-Indians) say that there was no invasion as the Vedas didn't mention anything of the sort. As for your assertion that most Indians are 'pure' Aryans.......
doesn't sound much different from some Viets who claim they are Chinese or those Filipinos who brag about having spanish ancestry.

lapu-lapu
Same thing with the Viets, many Viets have some chinese blood and lots of chinese cultural influence, much of it forced on them by the Chinese during their 1000 years of rule. Not to mention brief periods of Chinese rule after Vietnam gained independence when the Chinese would go to extreme lengths to forcibly Sinize them before they regained independence again.
Brahma Bull Friday, September 06, 2002 at 07:15:10 (PDT) [209.179.233.23]

Sean,

You make interesting points, but I highly doubt the Turkish nomads would account for 50% of northern China's populace at any given time. Otherwise, northern China would have been today a Turkish-speaking region. But, it has not.

Small numbers of Turks have successfully been able to force their lingua on many numerically larger Indo-European tribes and nations in Central Asia and the Near East.

And, genetically it seems from Y chromosome haplotypes and cranial measurements, that the northern Han Chinese still cluster more with southern Han and ancient Han Chinese than with Mongols and Central Asian Turks.
Jeff Friday, September 06, 2002 at 00:29:05 (PDT) [64.130.235.33]

sean: ok so if what you say are not out of secret why does it seem so hard to find that type of info on the internet?please don't tell me all you can find are wacke out sites and books are the only reliable source you have. lots of time books can be just as biased and wacked s alot o finternet websites. What matter is thepeopele who do the research.

"Anyway, it's like asking me to prove that Napoleon was the emperor of France when it is a historical fact agreed upon by all. "

no, it's not like asking you to prove Napoleon was emperor ofFrance. I'm not saying it's only about Gansu or the northern territory. A Lot o things you said didn't have back up, such as 50 % northern chinese have foreign ancestry, or the low rate mixing of mongols and chinese, manchurians. i know you intend to make it look like you're a smartass. at least anything people argue here, a n every-one-knows info like earwax or origins of the vietnamese have one or a tons of back up link. that sure gives credibility to what they say. i know you're making some details look like foolroof facts that no one can question as an excuse for your lack of back up. if everything can be broken down to simple and basic knowledge there won't be any discussions in this forum.

also you bring up something i didn't necessarily disagree w/. the northern chinese have ahuge amount of nomad ancestry. i don't deny this. speaking of the ancient chinese territory, you point out the ancient northern china. which is at the center of today China. the notion of distinct features btw North and South in those days were almost non existant given the slim difference. what's the point in trying to find and justifiy the ancient northern china ? so people in shanghai or henaan tomorrow willl be classified agian as northern china, right? the notion about ancient northern china and southern china is indeed vague. how ancient do you want it to be? let say, if it dates back to 3000 years, are you sure places like Hubei, Zhejiang belonged to chinese territory? also the Han cross the ZHANGJIANG river to reach the central China then conquered the land and assimilate its people. it doesn't mean the Han have origins in yangtze river. which brings me to a question, what can be considered a chinese? the conqueror who took the land or the southern people who contribute hugely to the development of chinesecivilization both of whom help give birth to the CHina we see today. whatever you may say, when people mention northern china, they refer to modern day northern china, and southern chinese when they refer to today southern chinese, cantonese, hakka. The chinese land and civilization were created through a long period of incorprating various lands into one. Any attemp to redefine the ancient norhtern chinese is waste of time in my opinion. variety is what china is about.
china form its culture/civiliztion by adopting things from various culture combined w/ its own stuff.

"here were never any Mongols that mixed with Chinese in sufficient numbers. Manchurian mixtures only occur in significant numbers in isolated places, like Beijing. "

i have a feeling this is one of your 'assumed notion' too. if manchu mixture occur in SIGNIFICANT numbers in isolated places, i don't see why it didn't occur in other places
especially the cities. it's not like they marry w/ local in secret. THey arethe rulers. suppose the aristocrat manchu only marry within their manchu group, but after the manchus were overthrown they did intermarry w/ a lot of Han. you can accuse my ignorance. actually i didn't know Beijing in the Manchu rule, Qin dynasty is still an isolated place. i thougt it was the capital. much appreciate if you educate me on this one.

seems like you're a booksmart, but sometimes you display your flaw in dissecting info, deducing a conclusion. we post our opinions certainly not by citing things we read in library, but also our ideas and impressions. if everything we discjuss here are common knowledge to the point a back up is unnecessary cos anyone must know it then is it really necessary to bring them up and debate them. if all one can comeup w/are info derived from books, we might as well go to library instead of going to an internet forum. discusssion involve giving assumptions as well.

and yeah, i hope this closese the book on the subject too.
k Thursday, September 05, 2002 at 20:41:44 (PDT) [203.162.133.235]

t dot o in 2k3

i agree with most of your comments, i just wanted to add something, the reason why latin america adopted spanish as the"iofficial" language was mostly because of the work done by several catholic orders who not only converted the indigenous population into this religion but they also made them speak spanish, i think this didn´t happen in the phillipines, at least not in that proportion.

another thing cuba was an important colony because it was used as a route to the atlantic ocean and because it was one of the forst ones but certainly the most important colonies in latin america were el virreinato de la nueva españa" or nowadays mexico and the one settled in peru. argentina was not that important.
korean mexican Thursday, September 05, 2002 at 18:48:54 (PDT) [148.240.2.131]

To, Sean;

You know, that was more trekie then i wanted. But i don't see how that is opposite to anything i said. Can you point this out?

I was trying to trace the origin of the southern chinese and it's neighbors to the Yueh. And so far, most genetical research done by the USA, Japan, Taiwan and China concluded to the same thing. That the genes of which the southerners hold were probably there already, instead of have been from the north (dubbed the Han) at that time when the southerners were the Yueh. I wasn't trying to track us to the iceages where we ultimately were the same. It doesn't matter where we started or end, it's about the journey, and this journey has bestowed many differences between us brothers. The southerners have differences genetically. Either from mutations/adaptions, or from whatever else. From this we can see that the modern south chinese and southeast asians probably came from the Yueh (when they were the Yueh, i'm not talking about before when they were in caves) and not the Han (again, at that point, where the people who named themselves were the people from the north, even if they have the same blood initially to the south it doesn't matter).

Some people think, "oh the Yueh and Han are the same". I believe not, maybe to a certain extent they are, but truly they were not.

Think of the Yueh and Han as being brothers to a family tree of mongoloids. They were once one, but split up to two different entities, each holding their own names. So they each now have their own identity, and their descendents are their descendents alone, not of their brothers. Like if me and Sean were brothers. I had children and you had children of your own. Is it right to call you, Sean, by the name of Hafti just because your related by blood? Is it right for your children, little Seans, to call their uncle, Hafti, by the name of father? Surely not. But we can all agree that we all probably came from the same mongoloid tribe that split up years ago.

It's like a tree, if i was branch hafti and grew off of the tree from the south side, and you my brother who is dubbed branch sean but grows on the northern sides, we are from the same tree, but are we the same branch? No. And the leaves (descendents) that fell off of me (branch hafti) will be from me, and did not fall from branch sean, no matter how much these leaves want it to be. We agree that we are not the same, but we are the same to the essense that we are from the same tree. But through more precise terms, Yueh and Han are different branches of a common ancestor, to a certain extent yes they are similar, but to the ultimate truth they are truly independent and of their own. Is that so hard to understand?

I was tracing it to the Yueh.
Hafti Thursday, September 05, 2002 at 14:56:02 (PDT) [142.59.36.71]

In Aryavarta there is no serious hatered between different castes they work as a team.
yayati Thursday, September 05, 2002 at 14:37:02 (PDT) [172.186.210.250]

"You are right. In fact, both Gansu and Xinjiang were more fertile than they are now."

Doesn't mean it wasn't dry. The Xinjiang mummies were preserved in the desert. It's safe to say Gansu wasn't the best place for cultivation, the backbone of Chinese civilization. It was more suitable for animal hubsbandry and the nomadic lifestyle.
North China was warmer and moist back then (central China --the original north China-- was actually classified as sub-tropical), as stated by various sources I can't recall. There were more forests that supported rhinos, elephants, and other animals now only found in the south. Then climate changed, partly because of extensive agriculture that cut down trees.
Sean Thursday, September 05, 2002 at 11:23:55 (PDT) [68.14.94.53]

HoloTaiwanese, commonly known as Taiwan, is the ancestral tongue of two third of Taiwanese people. The breakdown of Taiwanese races are as follows:

~64 % HoloTaiwanese
~24 % HakkaTaiwanese
~10 % Chinese(New Taiwanese, a term coined by President Lee Teng-hui in 1998)
~2% aborigines (South Islander and Malay)

Understandably, many Taiwanese claim dual ancestry of Holo and Hakka. Most HakkaTaiwanese speak HoloTaiwanese. Virtually no Holo speak Hakka. Many Hakka do not speak the ancestral tongue. Both Holo and Hakka language decline under Chinese rule after the end of World War II. Mandarin, which was never heard of in Taiwan, was "force-fed" to Taiwanese. The resurrection of these languges only start with Taiwanese democratization in recent years.

Taiwanese aborigines include two major groups: South Islander and Malay.

Holo from East Asia continent also belong to South Islander.

South Islanders, with lighter or pale complexion like Vietnamese, include similar races in East Asia continent at the southmost region in current China, Vietnam, to the North of Lao and Thailand, and other races at regions extended along the similar latitude all the way to Tibet.

Malay has darker complexion as Filipinos, and Pacific Islanders.

Nearly all aborigines of South Islander race has disappeared into HoloTaiwanese, which is South Islander from the continent, and HakkaTaiwanese.

Holo, like Cantonese, Vietnamese, and many races all the way to Tibet, are South Islanders.

Hakka are of Manchurian ancestral [NOTE: debatable, since there are other studies that suggest that the Hakka are really Southern origin, but assimilated into the mainstream Han culture earlier], like Korean and Japanese. They are originally from around the Great Wall and beyond. Microsoft's encarta states "either from the South or the North" of East Asia continent. Taiwanese and Japanese have been more certain than that. Both DNA and language traits confirmed this.

DNA evidence and official ID under Japanese colonial time further confirm that at least half Holo and Hakka Taiwanese are of South Islander aborigine ancestry. Nearly half of Hakka Taiwanese speaks Holo, the majority of Taiwanese languages for the last 400 years.

Nearly 70 millions speakers worldwide, Holo ranks 22nd in terms of number of speakers, or ahead of most European languages: Holo is an important commerce language in Southeast Asian countries such as Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore (majority of population), Indonesia, and Vietnam. In contrast, Cantonese is the language of blue collar from Vietnam to Chinatown around the globe.

Known as Hok-kian-oe or Tioh-chiu-oe in Southeast Asia, as Amoy in Amoy, as Taiwanese in Taiwan

Holo and, to a lesser extent, Hakka are the most important languages of commerce in South East Asia during the last four centuries.

Holo is a member of the Hundreds of Viet races (other members include Vietnamese, Cantonese) which is also known as South Islanders.

Similarity among Holo, Vietnamese, and Cantonese phonologically characteristics, and cuisine.

You can find more things at
www.hotsys-haksys.com/taiwanese1.html
Hundred Viets (or Yueh) Thursday, September 05, 2002 at 11:08:09 (PDT) [4.65.111.70]

The Iranians are cousins to the Germanic people in Europe. So I wonder if an Iranian who looks white and lives in the U.S, would mark herself or himself on the census that he or she is a member of the visible minority or not.
asian fellow Thursday, September 05, 2002 at 10:08:42 (PDT) [66.185.85.81]

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS