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 think that the line of pHysical distinction is blurring away rapidly. Most filipinos are starting to be mistaken for chinese or japanese people.
We're all asian
Person Siopaocity@yahoo.com Monday, September 30, 2002 at 21:54:00 (PDT) [67.119.24.204]

"On the other hand there seems to be a tradition that people prefer to count themselves rather as Northerners than as Southerners."

They are northerners. But I have to say they are relatively unlike Koreans in appearance. Shandong is also separated from Korea by an ocean to the east and by around 18 hours of train ride to the north. I'm speaking from personal experience. Also, the Shandong Chinese can always differentiate themselves from ethnic Koreans, who are numerous in Manchuria. Until 2 years ago, before I got a chance to see and compare for myself the differences between Japnese/Koreans (These two are different in themselves.) and northern Chinese on a first hand basis, I too thought there would be little difference. But the difference became so obvious after I stepped off the plane to China from Japan, and then compared ethnic Koreans with Shandong Chinese in Manchuria. I was shocked.
Also, it really depends on the area of northern China you're talking about. The situation is not as uniform and simple as it would seem.

I would define tall as 6 feet and above. Or maybe 5'11. I would define small as 5'6 to 5'2. I don't think this would be controversial.

"Although they have less "Arctic" features than Inuit or Inuit-related races they do not automatically belong to the Austro-Asian group of races."

I don't put any worth into the groupings per se. They are there only as reference points. Even the "Austro-Malay" peoples are a result of migrations from the north. Their ancestral home is in southern China, but they arrived in SE Asia (by way of Taiwan of all places) earlier than Mon-Khmer speakers and much earlier than Tai, Miao-Yao, and Sino-Tibetan speakers. I think there are still very small, almost extinct Austronesian speakers in southeastern China today, high up in the mountains in Fujian. The Taiwanese aboriginals are actually Austronesian speakers close to the Filipino and Malay groups. They look closer to Chinese than the other "Malay" people do, so some of the differences, not all, may be due to the "Malays" mixing with local SE aboriginals such as Negritos, who look nothing like Asians.

Again, all of the categories are artificial, giving general differences as a way to make sense of it all. But there are a lot of groups who wouldn't fall clearly into any of these "names." It is like deciding which intermediate hue is yellow and which hue is orange.

There are no clear-cut boundaries and the differences are gradual over distance, so that the north Chinese belong to a "northern Mongoloid" group about as much as they belong to a "Middle Mongoloid" group with the southern Chinese. Each group can be grouped with the people north of them or south of them. Each group is an interemediate level.
As for Mongolians, the northern Chinese definitely look closer to their southern Chinese countrymen on average. I'm not even saying this to get away from being close to Mongols, for as you know, Chinese feel insulted to be associated with Mongols as much as they would get offended to be assocaited with "southern barbarians." I personally think certain Mongols, not all, can be gorgeous women and handsome men as I've seen, almost with an east Asian version of the caucasoid look, only with "very Asian" features. You wouldn't know this unless you've seen this for yourself. It's hard to describe the look. And their culture, while nomadic, is honorable and very likable too.

To group people into separate categories is not a good idea because changes occur over distance. Look for my "genetics" reply to L and check out the site I posted. Then you'll see. The categorizations are artifical as even anthrologists concede. P.S. the sources of my info., I assure you, is not made up at all. However, I don't have the time to go to the library and check out books. But I don't see a problem in finding these info. if you spend enough time on in-depth books.
Sean Monday, September 30, 2002 at 17:22:42 (PDT) [68.14.94.53]

By the way, L, you can find a lot of what I was trying to say about the 50% nomads thing on your own sit...www.uglychinese.org.

As for other sources, I got my info. from reading actual academically respectable books. I 'm not going to waste my time to go to the library to copy down sources for you. I don't see why any of this is your business anyway because you're not Chinese, I wasn't talking to you, and you don't know jack about north Chinese history if you don't know what I was talking about. At least edumacate yourself first because you stick your nose in someone else's ass. One word: read.
Sean Monday, September 30, 2002 at 16:07:39 (PDT) [68.14.94.53]

"http://www.uglychinese.org/vietnamese.htm"

L, I ask you to give a respectable source for your evidence that Vietnam is the direct descendent of the Yueh kingdom, and this is what you give me. Need I say more?

And besides, your quote actually makes my point.
"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"
It is part of a larger paragraph that talks about Chinese conquest of Vietnam. It has nothing to do with the Yueh massively migrating there after their kingdom became part of the greater China. This is that the complete paragraph says. What are you trying to pull?

"During the early conquest, Qin mobilized an army of 100 to 200 thousand people, mostly consisting of the so-called outcasts of then China, i.e., the men who lived in wives' homes after the marriage and the merchants whose occupation was deemed the lowest in then society. 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."

The above DOES NOT refer to the Yueh at all. It actually refers to how the Chinese emperor mobilized a vast amount of soldiers and colonizers
(which could've included some Yueh people but proportionately not many). THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE YUEH MIGRATING TO VIET NAM. It actually states that the Chinese government sent alot of Chinese, mostly nothern Chinese by the way because the south at that time was still a frontier, to the deep south. If anything, it proves the vast amount of Chinese blood in the Viet people today, which you argue against.
What did I say about not being able to give any academically-respected and hard archeological and historical evidence? SHUT UP.

"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."

I never took back anything I said about "50% nomads." I suggest you go back and read what I wrote. Not only are you ignorant, provide false information, but you make up false memories in your own mind.
Sean Monday, September 30, 2002 at 16:00:05 (PDT) [68.14.94.53]

L, you wrote,

"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 ...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."

First, you keep giving me these Taiwanese independence and other wacked-out sites as reference sources. They have zero value. Just to make you happy, lemme further give you the most comprehensive source, the one I originally meant to show but mistook it for an earlier article. This one is dated Sept. 14, 2000.

"http://www.genome.uci.edu/onlinejournals/ding_china00.pdf" (actually a reliable, academic source by real scientists...notice) Below are quotes from it. I suggest you read the whole article and gain a real understanding of genetics and what it means for Asian populations.

"The existence of a genetic distinction between northern and southern East Asia is not well supported. Patterns of genetic diversity in the area are more consistent with the notion that local gene flow since the end of the Pleistocene era has erased old human population differences over much of the world at neutral marker loci (24), and that much of the differentiation in the region is attributable to simple isolation by distance (20). Such erasure is expected to happen even if migration rates are relatively low (25). The lack of pattern in East Asia suggests that many of the anthropological trends previously held to define pervasive regional distinction are strictly cultural phenomena with no implications for genetic differentiation. This finding is
itself interesting—regional cultural trends in East Asia seem to have persisted for lengthy time periods despite evident genetic continuity."

(This is the conclusion after the examining the data. Below are some highlights of the article.)

"Second, although northern and southern populations gener-ally fall into different regions of the principal components maps, the clusters are not distinct. For example, in the map of diversity in mtDNA, some southern populations such as Dai are much
more similar to other northern populations than they are to other
southerners, such as the Vietnamese or Malay Aborigines. The putative northern and southern clusters appear to blend across a cline; there is no abrupt change.
Third, populations sampled from adjacent geographical areas
tend to be near each other on the principal components maps.
This finding is consistent with previously published evidence of
genetic isolation by distance in China (20) and explains the lack of clustering in the principal components maps. Because populations are isolated by distance, and because they were sampled on a predominantly northysouth axis, the principal components
maps can be segregated into northern and southern groups delineated by latitude. This feature explains the gradual, rather than sharp, divide among the arbitrarily chosen north/south
divide."

The article includes different kinds of genetic data, and is the most comprehensive, non-biased of all studies. Below are some of the important stuff in the article.
1. mDNA of various southern Chinese groups fall into the northern half. This means that the maternal line of southern Chinese is "northern." The Y-chromosome, paternal line, I have alread explained to you. Souther and North Chinese also are the closest to each other there, although South Chinese are grouped in the southern half for the haplotype data strickly arbitrarily.
2. There is no distinct separation between north and south east Asia. The lines are arbitrarily drawn. Some groups fall into the northern group on some criteria, while falling into the southern group on others. The groups right below and above the arbitrary line are actually closer to each other.
3. The reason why old researchers keep finding a north-south difference is because they keep plotting data on a north-south cline.
4. The Taiwanese studies are not only unreliable but intentionally false because they use limited data, unreliable data, and consciously faulty interpretation. (This is really sad and brings shame on all Chinese.) I have seen the Taiwanese studies myself and they are very imperfect and unreliable. For example, they will give you a complete set of data (just one haplotype instead of a profile) and provide no direct comparison data (north Chinese data, SE data, and so on). You're just suppose to take their words for it.
It is really a con artist's approach --giving you irrelevant and imperfect data to create the false appearance of professionalism. They know the lay person can't tell A from B. I believed them until I understood more of how genetics works and looked at the data for myself. NON_ACADEMIC SITES ARE WORTH SHYT. Any respectable scientist will tell you that one haplotype, 5% of the population for example, is not enough to determine anything, especially without giving a comparison.

The complete data set, I have already presented, shows that north and south Chinese are actually the closest to each other. Again, for a shortcut, go to the human races calculator at http://www25.brinkster.com/humanraces/calc/.

If you would bother to read the article, you will see that I'm not making up anything. And you will see the truth of what is really going on. I hope this will end your constant nagging on this subject. Face it. You're wrong. Might as well take it gracefully because any other reaction just makes you look ridiculous by other readers no matter what you yourself thinks. I will try to answer some of your non-sensical post latter, if I have time.

But L, do you expect me to even answer to most of your points? You're just making yourself look ridiculous to anyone with half a brain. Look at the various, non-related, incoherent, wacky stuff you wrote (It was brutal to read, by the way.)

"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."

"For example, the white people were even called Yi once because they came through the south first."

"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?"

"To break all you afrocentric kids bubble, the Yueh are a people with VERY LITTLE recorded history."

"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 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)."

huh??? I can't even debate you on most of these points if I have some respect for myself and my knowledge. I don't even know what is your point. And really, in the end, Asians are related, all human beings are related, and I see everyday the close relationship of Vietnamese and Chinese in looks, culture, and political interests in America. So, what does it really matter?
Sean Monday, September 30, 2002 at 15:35:02 (PDT) [68.14.94.53]

I personally think that Chinese people can look like anything, from Vietnamese to Korean, to Filipino. Sure there are some "distinctly Chinese" features, but in my own social circle and others that I come across (Living in San Francisco which is flooded with Asians--Chinese in particular) we can look like everything! Perhaps it is because everything originated in China? ...Just a guess, not a person that knows much about history.
we're all asian anyway Monday, September 30, 2002 at 02:30:43 (PDT) [65.184.91.9]

[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. ]

You are talking about yourself IMO.

[I think I broke my promise twice about not answering you. The third time is the charm. Bye]

Thank u. Just what I expected.

[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. ]

actually it was done by Bao Dai about 70-80 years ago. He was the last vietnamese emperor.
K Sunday, September 29, 2002 at 22:55:58 (PDT) [61.11.245.6]

sean:

You're a hypocrite. The words you 've said must be instead those I reserve for you.

WHen did I insult you? And you think people are putting you down? Are you a little too sensitive?

I stop at your arguments several days ago, and then it was you who started all the flak. I didn't get riled up over that previous post like you are now.
Get a grip, take a sedate!

Bye!
K Sunday, September 29, 2002 at 16:17:42 (PDT) [61.11.245.6]

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS