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.]

i have to say all asians are beautiful...but if i had to choose one over the other .. maybe i'd say southeast asians and filipinos
blah Saturday, September 07, 2002 at 04:19:22 (PDT) [12.235.106.164]

just a comment to yayati, vietnamese people claim as being of chinese origin, is a FACT...if you read history books, it will say that vietnamese people came from northern china, so, no doubt that EVERY viet is of chinese origin
malina Friday, September 06, 2002 at 23:10:26 (PDT) [64.158.36.169]

Sean,

I only read a passage from a Chinese historical text that even during the Sui Dynasty, people even in the semi-arid northwestern parts of China (Shaanxi, Shanxi) had rice as a staple. Tang Emperor Li Shimin and his father Li Yuan was mentioned as to using rice to gain the good favor of peasants and regional warlords in that region of China.

You are right that Mongols and Manchus did not mix with Han Chinese as they strictly prohibited it. The Mongols even devised a pretty racist hierarchal caste system that separated the various races of China. Manchus prohibited intermarriage with Han Chinese after conquest, but ironic thing is that they had intermarried and incorporated Han people into their "8 banners" in Liaodong prior to crossing the Great Wall and conquering Ming China. Many Manchu bannermen and their descendants are actually Han or mixed.

There were quite a few Turkish groups who have disappeared or have been known to been absorbed into the Han Chinese ethnos (Huns, Toba Wei, Tu-chueh, Shatto, Dulgur, etc. among others).

But, still, they did not come close to anything being 50% of the population. Sometimes, the Chinese massacred them when they became weak. This happened during the Tang. About one million Turks were forcibly resettled in northern China's borderlands. Later some returned to the steppes, while many remained to serve Tang and became Chinese themselves.
Jeff Friday, September 06, 2002 at 21:57:46 (PDT) [64.130.235.33]

To, Sean;

"(Your site is an ideologically biased site, by the way. Doesn't mean the science is wrong, but stop getting your information from race-theory internet sites. At a certain point, their credibility converges with the that of neo-Nazi race studies sites.)"

You know how pathetic that little add on was? Well, no offence, but really pathetic.

If you read my sites, there were about 3 different sites refering to the genetics of the southeast asians and southern chinese/taiwanese. Two of which refered to HLA, and another to various types (mixed). I'm to tired to find them, but since your so 'bright' i bet you already read it.

The sites i brought up were universal in a way. If you look at the sites i gave, there were 3 directly on the research, and about 7 altogether including newscasts and historical sites. Ok, my point is that if you go back to my sites, you will find that Japanese scientists did the research independently and also MAINLAND chinese (no need for biases) as well as taiwanese scientists. They all concluded to the same thing. That the supposed Yueh descendents have little Han blood, and that these people were indegineous to the area. I am sure that taiwan have objectives like their aim at independence, BUT the chinese in china want unification. So why did these research papers from opposing scientists end up with the SAME conclusion? Because they were legit, and the truth was told.
Hafti Friday, September 06, 2002 at 15:41:35 (PDT) [142.59.36.71]

To, k;

Good point.

To, Hundred Viets (or Yueh);

Um, why would the Yueh also be known as a 'south islander'? They originated in the SE part of china or asia mainland, not an island. Just wondering you know.

To, Sean;

You still lack a lot of references, didn't i ask for a few references on that 50% foreign total population in the north thing?

Mutations can be EXTREMELY widespread by the way, if you look at that moth in england where it was originally white and now most are black.

This research has also been done on Jews, so it's not some new genetical research where conspirators purposely changed the test results so that each and every error would compliment eachother and point to the same idea. Even if this was only done on the Hoklo and Hakka and SE Asians, and to not other group, what are the chances that the genetic research done by the Taiwanese, Chinese, Japanese and Americans would compliment eachother in this way? Even in different fields of genetics, like Immunoglobulin, human lymphocyte antigen, glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase mutants, thalassemia mutants, and microsatellite suggests that there were different origins of the modern northern and southern mongoloid. Your theory is that genetics these days aren't very accurate and there are chances or error. Well what are the chances that all these so called errors would point to the same conclusion? There is no coincidence at all. And what are the chances that different types of genetic testings which hold errors would point to the same conclusions as well? Especially in a pattern which fits history very well. Not a very high chance of it just being a coincidence i might tell you, not at all.
Hafti Friday, September 06, 2002 at 15:32:28 (PDT) [142.59.36.71]

"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?"

Hafti, what I said is not anything like what you said. No offense, what you said was basically scientific garbage. I didn't say the southern Chinese were this or that either way. No body knows for sure, but the findings you derive your theories from are not actually what it seems. Have patience. Part I was just to get you to understand what the process and concepts are. It was clear that you were sounding off without a clue as to what you were talking about... Like a janitor somewhere explaining science to us because he read a Newsweek article somewhere. It's nauseating, no offense.
Part II will come when I have time. But sense you think Part one is Trekkie, when it is put in the simplest terms, then you should just quit now. I've replied to you all this time because you were nauseating, sounding off like an expert without having the slightest idea as to what you were talking about. It's not a personal attack on you, but all of your posts up to now are scientific garbage. I'll post Part II when I have time. Just be patient and read what I wrote and understand it.
This shyt is nerdy, but at least it saves the readers from your posts about ear wax and dark Vietnamese turning white.
Sean (not a nerd at all) Friday, September 06, 2002 at 14:34:06 (PDT) [68.14.94.53]

"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?"

What you said was laughable. I wouldn't even know what you would type on a search engine to look up information like that.
K,is it so hard to go to the library and check out a few books? Professional historians, archeologists, climatologists,anthropologist...publish books for their peers and for the public. They don't post articles on the internet. Even respectable academic internet sites only contain the basics, created by paid writers who often times have no idea what they are summarizing. Other sites are created by X-File types who back up their own little theories with snipits of information from here or there. (Example: the sites about how the first Chinese were blacks...they use some true facts but take them out of context and distort it.)

Look, I will not argue with you anymore. If you refuse to read a book and think the internet is a great place to find information, then that's your business. Who cares. I've actually given you the respect and time that I now know was a waste.
I read that sentence of yours and I didn't even go further.
Sean Friday, September 06, 2002 at 14:07:04 (PDT) [68.14.94.53]

"but I highly doubt the Turkish nomads would account for 50% of northern China's populace at any given time"

Actually, I don't think I ever said that. I said that the composite over time could be as much as 50%. It's not just Turkic nomads but other Altaic ethnic groups. They came in waves, each not at all a majority of anything. But over time, the non-Chinese contribution can be great. This process can happen because of several factors.
1. Some only ruled as minority elites. Others were intent upon becoming Chinese and their entire populations, sometimes through self-imposed policies, became Chinese, like the Toba. The numbers are in the hundreds of thousands, which would consitute a minority even at that time. However, this happened over and over. It can be like immigration in America. The Irish in certain areas didn't become majorities overnight, but they kept coming.
2. Every time there was war, and there were a lot of them in north China, massive famine and slaughter followed. Every time this happened, there was massive migration to the South. Whole clans, made up of thousands of people individually, would decide to move. I don't have the exact sources or numbers, but I read that south China went from being a semi-populated frontier to containing the majority of the Chinese population in little more than a century (it was a short period of time though I can't remember the exact numbers). Other sources document that large areas of north China were depopulated, only to be subsequently repopulated. So, you have one proportion dwindling while another increased. This is how over time nomadic elements can have a great contribution to northern Chinese genes.
Of course no northern Chinese likes to talk about this fact and so, a perfectly valid point has been neglected.

The southern Chinese don't like to discuss their mixed heritage either. However, the two areas became Chinese in different processes. In the south, it was the Chinese who were invaders, and their numbers were great, while the natives had no "Mongolia" to escape to to replinish their numbers and hit back with successive waves. A lot of the native peoples in the south were slash-and-burn rice farmers while the incoming Chinese used more advanced techniques to grow rice. The first method cannot support a large population but the second can.
This means that the assumption: "Well, south China wasn't a part of China so the Chinese there now must all be originally something else." is simplistic and glosses over detailed facts. The southern ethnic groups were never in large numbers, only scattered here and there; and it is very possible that large immigration from the north and subsequent growth supported by advanced agriculture would lead to the immigrants out-numbering the locals in a short time.
This is not to say the non-Hua composite of the south isn't great. I think it is, but it depends on where in the South you are talking about, just like in the North.
Sean Friday, September 06, 2002 at 13:46:03 (PDT) [68.14.94.53]

To those East Asians who say Filipinos are pale in comparision in achievements, think again.

Maybe it isn't much of a big achievement...but Bruce Lee's fighting techniques and nunchuck usage have been borrowed from 'Escrima', a type of Filipino Martial Arts. One of Bruce Lee's best friend is Filipino. Danny Inosanto taught Bruce Lee how to use the nunchuck properly, and with speed. In turn, Danny became of one of Bruce's most proficient students in JKD (Jeet Kune Do).
LSD Friday, September 06, 2002 at 09:21:48 (PDT) [66.212.81.198]

'Holo' in Mandarin, and especially 'Hoklo' in Cantonese is a rather derogatory term meaning 'Men from Fujian', often implying those seafaring groups who inhabit the coastal areas of Guangdong, whose ancestries are linked to that of Fujian. The term is usually given to the Chiu Jaus, who are no doubt the most important and well known Minnan speaking people in the Guangdong region.

The Cantonese are one of the most biased and prejudiced groups of South China. They were the ones who introduced terms like 'Hakka' which really implies 'savages' instead of the polite word 'guests', 'Hoklo''Men from Fujian' and 'Tanka''Egg People'.

I believe all of these racist terms originate from the Cantonese, which then became acceptable to everyday colloquial speech in other dialects such as Mandarin!

Interestingly, the backstabbing Cantonese are the most cowardly and least prominent in the SE Asian region. Hakkas, and Hoklos such as the Chiu Jaus and Hokkiens have dominate much of the SE Asian commerce and politics, while the Cantonese have not.

When Koreans, Japanese and Westerners often called the Chinaman as the Coward, it's mostly likely the Cantonese have molded such concepts.
LSD Friday, September 06, 2002 at 09:15:11 (PDT) [66.212.81.198]

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS