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.]

rare stuff

This guy posting by various names such as Singh, Shivdev Joon etc is a fake. Not only his posts are ludicrous but also full of errors, the kind of errors Indians seldom make. I think you guys should ignore this fake handle and continue on with your discussion.
Akash Saturday, September 21, 2002 at 12:23:28 (PDT) [129.7.203.71]

"And Cantonese dont look like the Chinese image we have in our mind. They look very mixed, kinda Malay or Polynesian with big eyes, jutting jaws, tanned,and conical skull. I dont think they truly in anyway represent the Chinese people in the looks department"

The difference between N. and S. Chinese, although it does exist, is exagerated. Whoever says otherwise is a weak-minded idiot. The similarity is as plain to see as lining a N. Chinese next to a S. Chinese. I suggest people go out and experience it, and life in general, instead of formulating stuff in their own little world and mind.

"It is said that the Cantonese, Minnan, and Vietnamese (Kinh or Viet variety) come from the Yueh (genetics proves that atleast 80% of the Hoklo genes are similar to the Yueh, while the rest is a mixture of aboriginals or han)."

Are you Hafti? Why do people keep repeating a non-fact? 1) It is really impossible to do tests to compare % of genes, as there are no "Hoklo genes" or "Iranian genes." All the genes are basically shared by every population. 2) I think you are talking about haplotypes, but no group has a monopoly on specific haplotypes either. Hoklos can't share 80% of their haplotype with Yueh becuase we don't know what Yueh haplotype was. Even if we did, no group has just one haplotype. The haplotype profile of S. Chinese is very close to N. Chinese, and there is not an 80% of anything. The two groups have 20% of one, 12% of another, and so on and these small % add up to a 100%. The taiwanese estimate that 80% of the population originated from the yueh is a guess based on little evidence. It has been proven wrong by later studies, the sources of which I already stated.
And thirdly, there was never a Yueh ethnic group.

The word, pronounced Yueh in Mandarin, Yuet in Cantonese, and Viet in Vietnamese, was a word that meant to crawl, cross, walk, leap. It was a term to designate the various different aboriginals who walked around in the south in the forest, like critters (not derogatory though). The Yueh were actually different peoples, some of whom could have been related to Hua (the Chinese) and many were not even related to each other. Yueh was the original name of a Kingdom south of the Yangtze R. that was ocean going and culturally very unlike the Central Plains Hua, if not ethnically unlike them. This word was later applied to Vietnam, among others, but it had little or nothing to do with the local people of Vietnam. Even the Cantonese, who shared an ancient kingdom called Nam Viet or Viet Nam (southern Viet)with Vietnamese, are related only by association with the same kingdom. The Nam Viet kingdom, according to scientists, were ruled by the ancestors of the Zhuang, who are Tai speakers. The modern Vietnamese are Mon-Khmer speakers, although they don't look like it. The Cantonese now are local Tai components mixed with Chinese. The Vietnamese are a probabaly a mixture of Mon-Khmer with Tai and Chinese. So, the word Viet or Yueh doesn't really mean much. I can be Viet or Yueh because my father came from the region of the original Yueh kingdom, which is like a thousand miles north of Vietnam.
Yeah call yourself Kinh or Muong if your Hafti. Hafti, if it's you, I don't think the Viet are too happy to have you speak for their ancestry, when you're not Viet yourself. And if you are a Muong, as you say, and that is a Mon-Khmer group living in the mountain areas of Vietnam and are physically more Cambodian, I hear you are discriminated against by the Vietnamese. So, why do you keep passing yourself as Vietnamese and telling everyone that southern Chinese are actually Viet. Talk about going through several different hoops. If you want everyone to be proud of their ancestry, then start with yourself.
Sean Saturday, September 21, 2002 at 10:51:15 (PDT) [68.14.94.53]

Rare stuff, you said,
Kirgiz "type resembles that one of the original Han and Tibetans around Lhasa. They share in common that they are all small, fat, broad-faced, slit-eyed people with dark skin. "

Well, the problem is that this statement is a fabrication, unintentionally I guess because of your presumptions. Tibetans are not small or fat, and their faces are relatively angular, many with deep-set eyes and high nose bridges. They do have dark skin though. Part of your statement is true for Mongols,the part about the broad face and slit eyes, but they are huge people, not small nor dark. The original Han, at least the skulls of pre-historic north Chinese, resembles that of modern southern Chinese, meaning more angular. The three populations, although bordering each other now, met from different directions. Sino-Tibetans are believed to have originated from the western part of north and central China, while the Mongols moved westward from the east, in southern Siberia and northern Manchuria.I think part of what you said has to do with murky impressions gotten from popular culture that mixes everything up, you know, TV shows where Chinese villains are dressed up with Mongolian hats and Japanese music is played in a documentary about the Chinese Sung dynasty (the ultimate insult to Chinese...like playing German music in a documentary about WWII Russian soldiers).
Sean Saturday, September 21, 2002 at 09:49:46 (PDT) [68.14.94.53]

Jeff, Middle Eastern admixture does exist in the Chinese population, but I think it's too small to be of any significance, may be 5% at the most. If we were really mixed with Middle Easterners to a great extent, we'd look more Middle Eastern instead of straight-arrow East Asian. We are heavily mixed with Hun,Turkic and other Altaic groups. But these groups were originally Mongoloid when they were mixing with the Chinese. The Huns and Turks did not become significantly Caucasoid until they moved westward. But I agree with you that the Tocharians are not East Asians, as K says. They spoke an Indo-European language as proven by their script, and mummies found dating to their civilization in Xingjiang are all Causcasians, in fact with red hair. Their culture was also closer to the western peoples.The Uighurs, originally Mongoloid, absorbed the Tocharians and other Caucasian peoples and that's how they look like hapas.
Today, many Tajiks in China, although a "Middle Eastern" people, have blue eyes, so the Tocharians might be themselves a composite race of Nordic Caucasians and Middle Eastern Caucasians. And it is true when you said that what is now pronouced in Mandarin as the Wusun were recorded in Chinese annals as having red hair, blue eyes, and a demon look. They were actually native to parts of the Chinese periphery and actually lived in Chinese cities, which shows the cosmopolitan nature of China. My mother does have a friend, 100% Chinese, who has natural red hair. Yes, natural, not died like so many Asian people nowadays. I think this is an isolated case and the Caucasian contribution is very small. Indonesians and Malaysians are more mixed with Middle Eastern blood than the Chinese. There were Indians colonies there, and later, heavy Arab immigration from the Yemen, plus the limited mixture from trade that is the case with most Chinese contact with the "Iranoids." Many of the the elite in Malaysia and Indonesia have Middle Eastern ancestors, and I have seen two Indonesians who look more like Saudi Arabians than anything Asian.
Sean Saturday, September 21, 2002 at 09:07:37 (PDT) [68.14.94.53]

Hafti, here is Part II of what I was saying. Here is the data that shows how Northern and Southern Chinese are closer to each other than to anyone else. The source is (http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_1999_v65_p1718.pdf)...fairly objective, reliable, with good science. This will be a long reading, so for a short cut, go to (http://www25.brinkster.com/humanraces/calc/). This is a human races calculator that measures distances between populations and will immediately show you that N. and S. Chinese are closest to each other than to anyone else. You'll have to wait for a Part III, a big IF, to make the picture clearer as to how Asians are related and why Taiwanese scientists can come up with contradicory results.I hope this post will make you understand and stop posting some of your theories.

Let me give you the hard info. with some exaplanations first:
H1 58.2%
-This means 58% of the population has H1 as their haplotype, which is not a gene! by the way.
-This is just data from a sample population and so, can be very different from reality since the test traces male ancestry and Asian societies are clan-tribe based, which means people are not evenly distributed. Here is a comparison:

Mngln: Jpns:% N.Chns: S.Chns:
H1 58.3% 20.7% 8.5% 7.9%
H2 4.2% 27.6% 0.0% 0.4%
H3 ----------none----------
H4 8.4% 0.0% 2.4% 1.4%
H5 12.5% 20.7% 22.0% 12.9%
H6 4.2% 17.2% 29.3% 25.4%
H7 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8%
H8 4.2% 10.3% 23.2% 27.9%
H9 4.2% 3.4% 9.8% 16.8%
H10 ----------none----------
H11 ------none------ 3.6%
H12 ------none------ 0.7%
----none---- H13 4.9% H13 1.4%
H16 4.2% H16 5 ----none----

From here,you can see that the frequency profile of north Chinese are actually closer,in fact almost identical,to south Chinese than to other northern populations. For more profiles of ethnic groups, you can go to the first site I mentioned. An added thing is that both S. and N. Chinese have the H13 haplotype. These two groups are the only two Asian populations with the H13 haplotype, even though only 5% and 1.4% of their population has it. Assuming the two populations operate as one block and never intermixed with other populations (a never), this would mean they're one population in relation to all others in Asia.
One will also notice that there is a gradual change in frequency from north to south, with the frequncies gradually rising or lowering, with many populations as intermediate stages. For example, 58% of Mongolians have H1 as their ancestral line, followed by 21% of Japanese, 9% of N. Chinese, 8% of S. Chinese, and only 4% of Cambodians. There is a gradual change from north to south and there are no separation lines of two distinct populations. (In fact, your things about populations separating during the ice ages is BS. The population moved north only as the glaciers melted away and there are no cut off points between populations.) Rather, it is like green slowly changing into yellow. They can't be classified as one color, so an arbitrary line has to be drawn in the middle. The line doesn't mean a lot because the gradation to the left and right are closer to each other than they are to either green or yellow. The stuff in the middle can be classified into it's own color, orange.
One of the ways south Chinese are classified into the southern group is that they have haplotypes that only show up in the south: H7, H10-12. However, there are huge holes with this style of analysis.
1) H7, H10, H12 only exist in, respectively, 1.8%, 3.6%, and 0.7% of the population --only 6 out of every 100 people has these "southern" haploypes. H10 doesn't show up in the south Chinese. Now look at H11. 3.6% of S. Chinese has H11. 14.3% of the Yi (a Sino-Tibetan people of the Tibetan-Burman branch who moved from north China to the south, as like other Sino-Tibetans, when the Tai peoples moved further south to SE Asia. This raises another issue of whether north Chinese and Tibetans lost the "southern" haplotypes since all other Sino-Tibetan speakers have it. Tai is also very likely one sub-branch of the Sino part.) and 9.1% of She (related to the Hmong) has H11. When you get to the Cambodians, H11 is in 23% of the population. So, there is a gradual increase of H11 with the southern Chinese having the least % of it.

2)So,6% of the southern Chinese have one of the "southern" haplotypes. Is this enough to classify S. Chinese as a southern group? Further, even the "southern" haplotypes exist usually as minorities in souther groups. Some of these "southern" haplotypes except for H7 might be residules of Negritos that were absorbed by Asians as they first moved north, and then moved south again.(So much for your Yueh genes BS, which doesn't even come close to the subject at hand, haplotypes, let alone haplotypes characteristic of the majority of a people.)
3)When they classify populations, they can only rely on the overall profile because all the population share the same choice of male ancestors in varying degrees.(For example,13% of Mongolians share the H5 ancestor with 30% of Malaysians and 9% of Javanese..58% of Mongolian share the same male ancestor H1 with 21% of the Japanese, 8% of Chinese, 9% of Javanese..and so on.) So, they have to ignore all the commonality and concentrate on haplotypes which exist only in certain groups.
5)Thus, even though only 6% of south Chinese has the "southern" haplotypes, they are classified as southern. In order for the southern Chinese to be southern,you have to assume that the population is one monolithic block that never mixes with other populations. The "southern" haplotypes are then naturally carried in the gene pool across time as a population characteristic. But we know this isn't true. There has been significant gene flow north to south and vice versa like forever.
3)The 6% might be left over when south china was swamped from the north, or it might be because of the minute 6% in the south that the north chinese lost the "southern" haplotypes as they moved north,(supported by the fact that most other Sino-Tibetans have the "southern" haplotypes; and certain pockets of north China actually have a "southern" profile)OR A COMBINATION OF BOTH. This fits with why north and south Chinese have so similar frequency profiles besides the 3 "southern" haplotypes.(By the way, you can have a southern haplotype and look totally Korean, and you can look totally Korean and be genetically closer to Cambodians, and a Mongolian and Indonesian can be related with the same haplotype ancestor and yet still be closer genetically to their own ethnic brothers who have different haplotypes. This is complicated. I know.)

So, the conclusion is this:
FIRST, the populations gradually change and the classification of north and south is out of a necessity to categorize rather than fact. The populations caught in the middle are closer to each other than to the two opposite poles, even though the "caught" people are categorized into different branches.

SECOND, Chinese, north and south, are closer to each other than to any others. South Chinese are classified as southern when only 6% of them has the "southern" haplotype. It is very likely that population from the north swamped the south, reducing the % of the "southern" haplotypes from 30%, a guess, to 6%. Or it could be that northern Chinese lost the "southern" haplotypes due to the minute numbers found in the region of south China (Again, certain pockets in the north has a "southern" profile). Again, this is supported by the fact that the majority of other Sino-Tibetan peoples have the the "southern" haplotypes, which distinguishes itself from Altaic speakers such as Mongolians and Manchurians. Or there could be a combination of the two causes.

THREE, not all groups in the south have all of the "southern" haplotypes. Some southern groups are closer to Chinese than they are to Malays. This is natural because of gradual variation. If I continue with the implications, it will get even more complicated. I think I've confused you enough. but if anyone reads this,at least it will stop them from making ignorant statements such as the taiwanese are really malays. A small number of delusional Taiwanese, because of their oppression under the northern Chinese dominated KMT and because of their new need to have independence, have come to reject their own culture and ancestors (It is their culture and their people no matter which way you look at it). This is just sad. It becomes basically idiotic, when someone like Hafti, not even a Viet but a minority Muong, gets into the frey with his Yueh genes and little understanding of it all.
Sean Friday, September 20, 2002 at 17:19:48 (PDT) [68.14.94.53]

Dear foreign Plant,

India is way ahead of China. India when she was invaded the invader always had himself destroyed due to our martial castes, who are the best fighters in the world.

That is why India is Hindu Today.
Subramaniam Friday, September 20, 2002 at 13:26:19 (PDT) [195.93.32.9]

To, Jeff;

Still you have not answered my question. Can you quote this from brinster? QUOTE IT. Not a simple reply like, "I saw terra cotta guys in china and they look cantonese". You refered to brinster, not quote it. That doesn't really support much of what you said. It's either i read the wrong article or it's not there. IF i read the wrong article (it could be this, because i just read whatever had the words east asians in it) then give me a link EXACTLY to that article, and tell me the exact paragraph on that page of where it says specifically that MODERN cantonese have a 100% match in skull structure when compared to the 'ancient' chinese.

Like seriously, i don't care about what you 'saw' in china. I've seen a few of those terra cotta statues before, but the guys didn't come up to me and say "here come and measure the skulls of this and compare it to the cantonese". What i am saying is totally NOT connected to the terra cotta, maybe it is INDIRECTLY but i don't care about that. You said that in brinkster it says that the modern cantonese skulls match the ancient chinese by 100%. And i want the EXACT link to this article and the paragraph number or quote it (as i don't see it, and it could be because i read the wrong article, so to clear this up and support what your saying to 100% without any doubt you should direct me to where you got this EXACTLY). For now i feel scepticle because what your saying could be wrong (and it could be because i read the wrong article, but the article i read from brinster was the ONLY one that included the words east asians in it, so i don't think it's that. So quote it, i don't want LIES or RUMORS to spread around the world here, so support it and clear my suspicions).
L Thursday, September 19, 2002 at 22:32:07 (PDT) [142.59.79.119]

I found this article on the Tsinoys (Chinese-Filipinos).

Another evident result of the close link and depth of interaction between the early Chinese and Filipinos is reflected in the Tagalog�s adaptation of Chinese kinship terms: ate, kuya, ditse, sanse, diko, sanko, inkong, impo, inso. According to anthropologists, each ethnic group normally has its indigenous kinship terms. The fact that the Tagalogs adapted Chinese kinship terms only shows the close-knit and intimate relationship, such as intermarriage, between the two people, at a very early time.

Intermarriages gave rise to the phenomenon of our having a first Filipino saint, Lorenzo Ruiz, who is half-Chinese. Then again, we have Mother Ignacia who is being proposed as the first Filipina saint � who is incidentally, also half-Chinese. Intermarriages between Filipinos and Chinese during the Spanish times resulted in the fact that Chinese blood make up 10 percent of the Filipinos� racial composition, meaning one out of 10 Filipinos is of Chinese descent (this could be greater now as the rate of intermarriages continue to occur). It is this racial blending that gave us the Yuchengcos, the Tuazons, the Sisons and the Cojuangcos � prominent Filipinos of Chinese descent who have served our country well.
Jeff Thursday, September 19, 2002 at 18:53:36 (PDT) [64.130.235.33]

Mihirkula Singh,

I didn't mention Huns nor Sanskrit anywhere in my comments...So do you call yourself a "Hun"?
rare stuff Thursday, September 19, 2002 at 15:41:12 (PDT) [62.158.89.246]

Jeff:

thx for the post. i appreciate lots of the info. however i still stick to my opinion that the gene pool in china was too large to alter.
k Thursday, September 19, 2002 at 11:15:12 (PDT) [61.11.245.6]

Jeff,

modern Kazakhs are much more heterogenous than modern Kirgis. Until I don't know more about modern Kazakh race I will try to avoid speaking about them. But I'm quite sure that Kazakhs have assimilated many small tribes which could at last not survive on their own in Central Asia. Among Kazakhs you'll find -depending on which tribe you're referring to- racial elements from Caucasoid to Mongolid, and all types of Central Asian Mongolids.

I tend to stress that cross-cousin marriages were very common in ancient times. Thus interbreeding was not as common as you might want to portray it.

The Eastern Turks (Usbeks/Uighurs) where originally more pure-bred. They must have looked like the Hazaras in Afghanistan. I'm referring to the Hazaras of Hazarajat, not the Aimaqs whom I've never seen. Hazaras only adopted Iranian culture/language to a certain degree. So it is still obvious that their origin is Eastern Turkic. Racially they are in contrast to Uighurs, Usbeks and maybe Aimaqs pure-bred. (Which does not mean that Pashtuns or others wouldn't rob Hazara women to take them as 2nd or 3rd wives.)

As for Yakuts, they are not pure-bred at all. First Yakuts assimilated more and more Tungus speaking Arctic elements to a degree that the original Yakuts became a minority. Later the Russians came and mixed with them.

Generalizing it's not that difficult to find out the racial type being intermediate to all Turks. Of course, the Northwestern and Western Turkic language group will have to be excluded due to their strong admixtures.

Finding out Han elements might be difficult because there is no distinct type of Han race. Like "Greeks", "Egyptians", "Indians" and "Romans" "Han" people are essentially mixed, as a race as well as as a culture. Besides, East Asians and Central Asians are far more difficult to be distinguished from each other than East Asians and Amerindians.
rare stuff Wednesday, September 18, 2002 at 18:18:54 (PDT) [62.158.89.162]

rare stuff,

I have a coin of Vasudeva the Hun he looks like a pure Aryan my dear foreigner. Also the language spoken by Huns was close to Sanskrit. So trying changing history elsewhere.
Mihirkula Singh Wednesday, September 18, 2002 at 14:18:12 (PDT) [195.93.48.9]

Excellent new syllabus in India. Most Indians in different parts of India are pure Aryans. the original home of the Aryans is India and Sanskrit is the mother of all Indo-European languages.
Subashji Wednesday, September 18, 2002 at 14:14:22 (PDT) [195.93.48.9]

Jeff:

great post...but an importantpoint is:

the tang dynasty is the only period that has a open foreign relation policy.

accept it, you are chinese. why do you have to think you can be a mixed. i think it's ridiculous.
k Wednesday, September 18, 2002 at 13:43:40 (PDT) [61.11.245.6]

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS