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.]

To, K;

I agree to what your saying. But someone who knows nothing of the vietnamese people wouldn't know anything about the vietnamese once belonging to the Sino-Tibetan group would they? Hahaha, Sean should really learn something before he posts it like he knows something. I hate it when 6 graders read a university level history book and thinks he knows everything. Even thinking it's the correct, and only true version of history out there. For example, during Louis XVI there were many different numbers for what the population of france was; one person would say 26 million, another 28 million, another 24 million. Who's correct? No one is, because no one can prove it. Stupid kid.
To, Sean;

"The "Yi" were hypothesized to be related to the Wu and original Yueh because they had close political relationships during the Warring Kingdoms period."

Please provide a source. I have a hard time believing anything you say after you concluded that northern china's population was once filled up to 50% of the entire population by nomads then denied it. Go back and read your own fricken posts if you don't believe me. The Yueh and Wu were enemy states by the way. The Yueh ended up destroying the Yueh, after being drained of resources the Chu took advantage and took over the Yueh. The Yueh who didn't want to be ruled by a foreign power moved south to Guangdong and Guangxi of which at that time had no ruler and was sparcely populated. After a while of being left alone the Qin armies under Chao To came in and conquered the area earning the title of governer. After he committed treason and denied all who was loyal to the chinese he took up Yueh customs and identity.

If your chinese i would see that you should pick up the meaning of Yueh as barbarian. The word Yueh was first used to describe dark skinned tribesmen of the north of china who lived around the Yellow River. It is sometimes a misconception that the Yueh of the north (who were called barbarians) would be the same as the Yueh of the Yangtze (who were also barbarians, see why the chinese would use the same descriptive word?). It is possible that the ancient chinese called everyone from the south Yueh just because they were barbaric and well from the south. The Yueh people of the north were called teh Yueh of the south, because they lived just a little south of where the Shang kingdom was (which every one knows is around Shangdong). Because of this interaction we know that the Yueh were northern. But then why do the chinese call the Yueh of the far south Yueh also? It could be that they were BARBARIANS. Don't you notice? The state of Yueh was established around the 7th century BC. The Yueh afrocentric sites keep on talking about were around 2 millenia to 1.5 millenia BC. And they were supposedly the beginners of Japanese and Korean civilization as well. How can people who belonged to the south go to the north that fast? The Anu were around for a while, and aboriginals of korea probably even longer. So i don't think that the Yueh of the southern kingdom at 500 BC is the same as the dark skinned 1800 BC that fought against the Zhou. Why? Because they are connected because they are from the south of them (to no degree, so even just a nudge would dub you Yueh) and because they were barbarians. For example, the white people were even called Yi once because they came through the south first. See the connection? If you notice chinese sites, they usually don't connect the Yueh during the Shang era and call them the ancestors to the Yueh of the south but afrocentric sites would continue on saying like the Yueh of the Shang migrated south to be the Yueh of the south. To break all you afrocentric kids bubble, the Yueh are a people with VERY LITTLE recorded history. Everything we know of them today can be false due to that. The only known history of the Yueh was that they destroyed the Wu and that they gradually moved south after being hit by the Chu. THAT'S IT. So how do they know more about the ancient Yueh's than the chinese do (who have unlimited access to historical records and, since they now own the land, can have all the archaelogical evidence they want)? Easy, like how they know everything else, second hand knowledge. Look, they're claims on history is so distorted. Or atleast the sites i've seen and the books i've seen.

http://www.hku.hk/hkprehis/summary.htm
- that might add to your understaning of the Yueh, it only has a paragraph on it though.

http://www.hawaii.edu/cseas/pubs/explore/v3/todd.html
- this is mainly about the dispute on the Spratly Islands written by a man named Todd C. Kelly, he recognizes that the northern vietnamese came from the Yueh of the south (he read both chinese sources and vietnamese sources, the part was why the vietnamese and chinese have this conflict, and from what he read he thinks it started when the Yueh were pushed down to northern vietnam by the chinese. This is evidence that he read both articles on history, so it is accepted).

http://www.wufi.org.tw/eng/linmalie.htm
- This is the genetics article on HLA studies amongsts many asian ethnics. It was written in 1999 and has 25 different sources/references for back-up from research done by japanese scientists in england, and american scientists, not including taiwanese scientists of course. Since you claim that 'newer' research has proven this wrong please provide the source. Since the only article you have provided was written in 1997, which is 2 years older then this, and yet you claim that it proves a newer source wrong. Funny.

http://home.i1.net/~alchu/hakka/toihak0.htm
- This is an article based purely on japanese and american research.

http://www.uglychinese.org/vietnamese.htm
- "History recorded that altogether 500,000 people, again consisting of the disgraced men and the merchants, were relocated to southern China by Qin Shihuangdi. This explains the fact that today's Guangdong Province still possesses the most variety of ancient Chinese dialects."
- you are correct in the way that the south of china could be just descendents of northern chinese. But remember that it speaks only of Guangdong. Those 5 hundred thousand disgraced men were relocated mainly in guangdong. So for all you fools who keep on saying they're viet, please learn how to read.
- "History of Sui Dynasty stated further that the people of Linyi (Champa) possessed dark skin and curly hair, and that after first Sui Emperor Yangdi conquered Southern Chen Dynasty in AD 589, Linyi sent in tributes."
- "History of Sui Dynasty stated further that the people of Linyi (Champa) possessed dark skin and curly hair, and that after first Sui Emperor Yangdi conquered Southern Chen Dynasty in AD 589, Linyi sent in tributes."
- The people described as dark with curly hair were the Cham not the modern viets who came from north vietnam long ago.
- So all of you who keep on saying the vietnamese were descendents of indians, you better learn to read. The modern vietnamese came from northern vietnamese originally. The southern vietnamese were the people described as dravidian/indians. They're kingdom was destroyed years ago. Most of those people were Cham.
L Saturday, September 28, 2002 at 11:53:51 (PDT) [142.59.79.119]

killahcam,/the fact can not deny
i agree with what your saying 100%, because it's true. I was just wondering if you consider indians from india asian, due to all their contributions to "asian culture" in general such as buddhism, martial arts, writing system in S.E asia..so on..thanks
me Friday, September 27, 2002 at 20:01:44 (PDT) [66.229.24.67]

Sean,

OK, I have just a few video tapes about Qufu in Shandong which naturally doesn't cover whole Shandong. Further I have just sparse information, like rumours, stereotypes etc. On the other hand there seems to be a tradition that people prefer to count themselves rather as Northerners than as Southerners.

But what now do you call "tall"??? I know people who a 5"8' (170cm) guy "tall" while others call the same man of 5"8' a "dwarf".

However, it's not merely racist propaganda if Asian races are described as smaller or "stranger" than they in fact are. Indeed, there is a certain basic strain in some Asian races which fits exactly into the Western racist stereotypes. Not to feed the "one yellow mass" thesis I would like to know as much of the factual diversities revealed as possible.

I consider most Southern Mongolid populations (such as Viets, Hmong, Dai etc) to be of the tonal speakers' stock. Although they have less "Arctic" features than Inuit or Inuit-related races they do not automatically belong to the Austro-Asian group of races. Those have only contributed an admixture to the tonal speakers. Chinese between Yangtse and Huangho seem to look different from most of the people in the South of the Yangtse. (I state that Chinese between Y. and H. have more Arctic features like flatter faces etc.) Therefore I bet they are of rather Northern stock. But maybe I just saw the wrong documentary films.
rare stuff Friday, September 27, 2002 at 16:25:20 (PDT) [62.158.89.110]

K, fine I'm an idiot, an immature brat, and what not. Happy now? Does the fact that this is just the Internet ever enter your mind? I can smell your breath from here; calm yerself down.

I didn't start the insults; it was you, if you remember. At first I thought you were a reasonable person to talk to. But now I see this is hopeless. It's not about the truth but about people's fetishes and what views they get off on. They'll never change their minds. I haven't been disagreeing with you. You've have been disagreeing with the history and genetic studies that are out there. (Viet is a Mon-Khmer language by the way. You're wrong again: 1. http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?name=Austro%2DAsiatic&subid=833
2. http://www.britannica.com/search?query=Vietnamese&ct=&fuzzy=N)

It is Tai who was and is still being considered as might be related to the Chinese part of the Sino-Tibetan family. Their pronouns, words for body parts, animals, meat, kill, and old and new, and numbers are very close to Chinese pronounciations. Just because Vietnamese culture is similar and because there are have a lot of borrowed words from Chinese doesn't mean Vietnamese language is related. Their basic words are so different. I can't say about teh people though...but in the end we are all related as Asians and human beings...so who cares. That was my original point in coming here to post. I was just disgusted with the bickering. But I guess once you dig in, you're hands get dirty too. K, grow with this north Chinese south Chinese nonsense. I think I broke my promise twice about not answering you. The third time is the charm. Bye
Sean Friday, September 27, 2002 at 12:09:14 (PDT) [68.14.94.53]

killahcam said:

"...filipinos have no asian values at all."

What do you mean by that? What's your definition of "asian values"?
true killer Friday, September 27, 2002 at 12:04:05 (PDT) [202.164.170.182]

L, is this really necessary?
"-Hafti Monday, September 09, 2002 at 15:44:24 (PDT) [142.59.36.71]

-a Vietman Tuesday, September 10, 2002 at 11:18:35 (PDT) [198.64.15.168]
-TSJ Eric@KristinKreuk.net Tuesday, September 10, 2002 at 13:01:26 (PDT) [209.162.48.81]

-The fact can not deny Wednesday, September 25, 2002 at 14:10:49 (PDT) [63.93.107.124]

-Jeff Wednesday, September 25, 2002 at 19:12:03 (PDT) [64.130.235.33]

-k Wednesday, September 18, 2002 at 13:43:40 (PDT) [61.11.245.6]

-L Thursday, September 19, 2002 at 22:32:07 (PDT) [142.59.79.119]

You seem to be a rather big loser. Hahahha, get a life.

-Sean Saturday, September 21, 2002 at 09:07:37 (PDT) [68.14.94.53]

-Sean Saturday, September 21, 2002 at 09:49:46 (PDT) [68.14.94.53]

-Sean Saturday, September 21, 2002 at 10:51:15 (PDT) [68.14.94.53]"

Jeez, You get a life. And quit tagging yourself as L. It just looks like it stands for lame ass.
Sean Friday, September 27, 2002 at 11:46:19 (PDT) [68.14.94.53]

L...L, you wrote,
"Through CHINESE (not vietnamese, to rule out personal agendas) the MODERN vietnamese came from what the chinese called the Yueh. The kingdom was attacked and destroyed, the people then migrated in mass numbers to what is today Guangdong and Guangxi"

??? Talk about living relocation... So in the end Vietnamese are still Chinese??? Wait.. you'll say that southern Chinese are really Viets, so itz all good. But if they migrated to Vietnam, then they can't be in both places at once...right? Does this make sense to you??? And there are no Viet, or very little, in Guangxi. The native people there speak a Tai language to this day. (I don't think they'll be too happy to be part of your Viet parade either.)

I know about the Yueh kingdom and its history, so you don't have to tell me. My father originated in Ningpo, which is at the heart of the Yueh. They still refer to certain local things as Yueh this or that. I don't know why they would flee in mass numbers because they were a semi-integrated kingdom of the Chinese world, and was one of like 15 states. It wasn't like, "oh the Chinese are coming, we have to run." They were considered as Chinese as the Chu and the Chin, the Wu and the Yi, and the Zhou, all of whom contributed to a culture that became Chinese with the central plains Hua. What is the motivation for people to leave their lands, livelihoods, and what they know to run 900 miles to the south and build a Viet Nam??? Might as well sail to the Philipines and make a Viet Flip. Maybe this theory should be your next hobby.

I know that there has been SPECULATION by ancient Chinese historians, passed down to western archeologists, that the Yueh are ancestors of the Nam Viet. This is as unreliable a connection as calling a Guatemalan a Spanish guy and deducing he must be from Spain. Why can't you be your own "Guatemalan," L? You are always shouting about how proud you are of being Viet. Then why does your Vietnam Pride days always have to connect with some part of China? Can't leave us alone.

Where is the recorded evidence of Yueh to Viet Nam? (Actual records written by Yueh officials saying that they migrated to Vietnam and set up camp in Hanoi.) Where are the unearthed artifacts connecting the two kingdoms? (And don't give me pre-historic axes and pottery...been there done that) Where are the records by Chinese historians tracing the exact routes the Yueh took, what they saw along the way, and what decisions they made? (I guess there must have been Chinese journalists following the escaped Yueh around.)
If you can provide any of these through RELIABLE soucres (scholars well-accepted by their colleagues), I will bow down to you. Ain't got no pride. Pride is for fools. Only the truth matters. If you can't, SHUT UP.

As to Viets having a lot of Chinese in them, it was Hafti who said 30% Chinese. He qoutes some study down by a Vietnamese emperor, Le?, like two hundred years ago. And judging by the amount of Chinese-mixed Viets I see, it is believable to me. (You must not know a lot of your fellow kind if you don't know this. I don't know what ghetto-fabulous hole you crawled out of.You better crawl back to Ignorant Town, Mississippi, where you think you're the center of the world.) And yes, the Viet do keep geneological records,DUH.

But i really dont care what viet are. the viet can be 0% chinese and i'll be as happy as i always was. i don't want to be viet and have never pretended i know that much about vietnam. it's not my business. i do know a lot about chinese history and chinese genetic studies. and chinese, chinese history, and chinese culture is none of your business, so mind your business if you want others to mind theirs. You haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about.

Yeah, you're so much more intelligent than me. I'm just hurting how you put me down. sniff sniff yeah wutever
Stop busting out with seizures every time you write. Relax yourself son.

Sean Friday, September 27, 2002 at 11:33:27 (PDT) [68.14.94.53]

sean:

"Are you Vietnamese?"

I'm of korean/ chinese descent. and interesting also 1/4 vietnamese. My grandmom is viet/chinese(cantonese). I love my heritage and feel very asian.

L:

It is obvious hafti, you and i are not the same individual. Hafti seem to be away...i don't see him post here recently. Hope he'll drop by soon.

I'm just tired of discussing w/ that dude Sean. He still haven't provided any reliable source so far, and if someone tells him that, he' d put down that person in some way like he did to me by saying how I only search infos on the internet and how idiotic I am. To insult someone as being iditic is the last resort when arguing which is the sign of weakening.
K Friday, September 27, 2002 at 10:24:16 (PDT) [61.11.245.6]

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS