Comparing Asian Nationalities | Asian American Poll

COMPARING ASIAN NATIONALITIES
(Updated Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008, 05:22:51 PM 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.]

hey chinese,
the following are excerpts from an article titled:"Introduction to the anthropological study in mongolia" by D. Tumen, Ph.D., Chief of Anthropology Department, Institute of General and Experimental Biology, Academy of Sciences, Mongolia. It goes:

"There are more than 20 tribes and ethnic group of Mongol and Turkish origin living in Mongolia. The 1989 population census shows that 80 percent of Mongolia's population are Halha; 2.6% - Dorvod; 2.0% - Bayad; 0.3% - Hoton; 0.5% - Oold; 0.2% - Miangad; 1.2% - Zahchin; 1.1% - Urianhai; 0.5% - Torguud; 6.1% - Kazakh; 1.2% - Buriad; 0.7% - Darhad; 0.1% - Barag; 1.1% - Uzemchin; 1.5% - Dariganga; and the rest are Chantuu, Tsaatan (reindeer breeders), and Tuva, etc. Of them, the Kazakh, Hoton, Tuva, Chantuu or Uzbek and Tsaatan are of Turkish origin and the remaining - of the Mongol origin.

Historically, the Dorvod, Bayad, Miangad, Torguud, Urianhai, Oold and Zahchin are from Western Mongolia or are of the Oirad tribes; the Uzemchin and Barag are from Inner Mongolia and all of the Halha tribes, including the Borjigin. Hatgin, Hotgoid, Sartuul, Iljigin, etc., are from Central Mongolia.

According to anthropological characteristics, these tribes, although they have the features characteristic of the Mongols, can be divided into two basic groups, according to their geographical affiliation. For instance, the Buriad, Barag and Hatgin tribes of Eastern Mongolia and the Halha tribes have a strong Mongol characteristics while those tribes living in the West - Zahchin, Torguud, Oold, etc., - have characteristics relatively similar to the Europeans. The Mongols with their anthropological traits are very similar and close to the Buriad, Kalmyk, Koreans and the Japanese."

So,please, don't ever try to confuse koreans with chinese. We have a history of our own. We are distinct and diffrentiable from you chinese. By the way, my surname is hahn too.

hahnys Wednesday, December 04, 2002 at 09:25:01 (PST) [202.166.126.228]

"it doesn't matter whether you deny the importance of Hmong/Dai, Tuvan, Korean, Finnish or many other cultures and races for world history. There are people enough who realize that you sympathize with the masses that crush minorities who could have been your archrivals some centuries ago. The falsification of gene studies helps you to falsify history. After all I'm not a human rights activist. So take reading this as a necessary trip back to reality before going on with your "one race-one culture" myth."

What am I denying again?
It is really hard to falsify genetic data. First there were people who came in here to present data that the Chinese were indeed two separate peoples. Then when it was proven that the data either showed bias and fallacies or really proved the other way around upon closer look, there were charges that the data is falsified. You can't have it both ways.
And besides, most of the data is done through coperation between international scientists who monitor each other; do you think Stanford would publish respectable articles if the data looked manipulated to them? Do you have any idea the type of scrutiny and steps it takes to do and validate scientific research? I'm not speaking to you as a Chinese by as someone who understands the basics of scientific study. It really is ridiculous to say "well they pick the ones that look like they have these genes"....LOL genetics don't realy work like that.

And why would the Chinese govt. really have any interest in that sort of stuff anyway? That would be a huge conspiracy to pull off, with no benefits...I suggest you order satellite TV by CCTV (China Central...govt owned)...All it shows are these boring documentaries about minority groups and their contributions to Chinese culture...If they really wanted your "conspiracy theory" to happen...they'd shut down that first...

"your "one race-one culture" myth.""

I don't believe this at all...hehe not at all...it's just that what you say is pretty ridiculous...

look there are tons of historical
1. records (the Chinese were really good at that) that document the point by point migration of Chinese in south and north China...down to the number, town, and name...where they DID mix with locals...BUt this is different from saying "this Chinese is really this... or that Chinese is really not but made to believe..."

2. reliable genetic tests (ones less easily manipulated: Y-haplotype, mDNA) show that that while there are differences, S. and N. Chinese have the closest profile to each other. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Chinese in Singapore and Malaysia have a sizable Malay heritage, but they would still test closest to mainland Chinese, even tho differences will exist because of the mixture. By your logic, Malaysian Chinese (30% of population) must be really locals made to believe they are Chinese...

3. Even by looks, Chinese, north and south, on average look closest to each other...not to say that differences aren't there...and in extreme cases...very different

I'm simply stating the facts...I have no interests or agenda in manipulating the facts.....I'm just fed up with non-Chinese people like you with an agenda... telling us about ourselves as if you know better
another voice Monday, December 02, 2002 at 12:28:18 (PST) [68.9.169.159]

Close Relatives,

They make similar comparisons of Japanese sharing many primitive root words with Malayans.

I think in the distant past, all Asiatic people spoke one ancestral language.
yy Thursday, November 28, 2002 at 13:16:26 (PST) [64.130.235.33]

another voice,

it doesn't matter whether you deny the importance of Hmong/Dai, Tuvan, Korean, Finnish or many other cultures and races for world history. There are people enough who realize that you sympathize with the masses that crush minorities who could have been your archrivals some centuries ago. The falsification of gene studies helps you to falsify history. After all I'm not a human rights activist. So take reading this as a necessary trip back to reality before going on with your "one race-one culture" myth.
qed Wednesday, November 27, 2002 at 16:13:21 (PST) [62.226.252.190]

"Seems to be propaganda of the Chinese government. The truth is that there are you have the choice to test both Southern Han communities of Central Chinese race as well as Hmong/Dai race. Of course, to make a genetic unit of North and South they will choose those communities with the strongest possible Northern features which can be found in the South for the tests. The majority who have Hmong/DAi genes are not tested, I suppose."

Even disregarding the unlikelihood of the assumption and supposing it's a rational guess, you'd have to contend with the fact that the "Chinese govt.", at least at the top, is and has been controlled by Southerners.
Starting from after the Manchurian Qing Dynasty (obviously northern, not Chinese even), we have:
1. Sun Yat San (Cantonese or Hakka)
2. Chiang Kai Shek (Zhejiang province, Wu speaker)
3. Mao Ze Dong (Hunanese...province just north of Canton, Xiang speaker)
4. Deng Xiao Ping (Sichuanese Hakka)
5. Jiang Zhi Min (Subei area, Mandarin-speaking area but culturally southern)
6. Zhu Rong Zi (Hunanese, Xiang speaker)

You see?
another voice Wednesday, November 27, 2002 at 12:23:07 (PST) [68.9.169.159]

"He noticed that over 3,000 pairs of Chinese and Mongolian words share almost the same pronunciations and meanings. An interesting finding emerged after he compared the rules of linguistic changes between the Tibetan, Manchu and Turkish languages: The languages all follow strict and clear rules of pronunciation equivalence.
Mang discovered that all the equivalent words of these languages can be found as frequently used vocabulary in historical documents, ancient books and records dating prior to the Qin Dynasty (221 B.C.- 207 B.C)."

This is not really a scientific article, if you did qoute it. For starters, Mongolian and Manchurian did not even exist as languages 221 B.C. And since the Altaic languages employed no system of writing back then (no histroical record for us to examine), I wonder how he can compared and contrast.

Secondly, many lanuages share common vocabulary. Chinese shares as much, if not more, common vocabulary (or atleast similar pronounciation) with the Tai languages, which if shows not relation, at least shows extensive pre-historic contact.

Third, it's really not the quantity of vocabulary that matters. It's the quality. By this I mean that two lanuages have to share the same root, basic words for them to be related (words for I, you, hit, speak, eat,...eyes. arms, meat...). Both Japanese and Vietnamese share a lot of common vocabulary, but not in the basic words. Japanese share alot of vocabulary with English (banana, coffee...). English shares a lot of words with Latin....

And finally, a lot of common sounds happen by coincidence. If one searched enough, any language can have a lot of similar words with another. An Eskimo word for snow might be the same sound as an Arabic word for chilly. They are than taken as having the same root...an ancient word for cold. This is how "linguists" "proced" Sino-Tibetan is related to the Basque language of Spain and the Na-Dene languages of Navajo/Apaches.

more info. is needed to make any incipient determination...do you have a link for the full article?
another voice Wednesday, November 27, 2002 at 12:11:17 (PST) [68.9.169.159]

Han-Tibetan, Altaic Languages "Close Relatives"

HOHHOT, February 25 (Xinhuanet) -- The Han-Tibetan and Altaic groups of languages, two of the world's nine big language families, have certain things in common which indicate that they might have the same primitive roots, according to a Mongolian linguist.

Mang Mulin, a professor at the Inner Mongolia Normal University in north China's Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, began studying the derivation of Mongolian words in the late 1970s.
He noticed that over 3,000 pairs of Chinese and Mongolian words share almost the same pronunciations and meanings. An interesting finding emerged after he compared the rules of linguistic changes between the Tibetan, Manchu and Turkish languages: The languages all follow strict and clear rules of pronunciation equivalence.
Mang discovered that all the equivalent words of these languages can be found as frequently used vocabulary in historical documents, ancient books and records dating prior to the Qin Dynasty (221 B.C.- 207 B.C).
... There are 17 languages spoken in China belonging to the Altaic family. The speakers of these languages mainly live in northeast and northwest China, including the Uygur, Mongolian, Korean, Gaoshan, Uzbek and Ewenki peoples.
Close Relatives Tuesday, November 26, 2002 at 22:19:29 (PST) [202.166.126.232]

Actually, most Northern Chinese would feel more in common with Southern Chinese, despite a certain amount of cultural, linguistic, and racial differences. This is not because Chinese are unified. In fact, Chinese are one of the most self-bickering, dis-united peoples out there, especially comapred to Koreans or even Vietnamese with their respective senses of ethnic solidarity. BUT, there is far more common blood ties, history, and interests for different Chinese groups than differences. I can tell you from personal experience that most Northern Chinese do not at all feel a special relationship with Koreans...
You have Viet coming here to get Southern Chinese as theirs and Koreans reppin Northern Chinese. This is just ridiculous.
another voice Monday, November 25, 2002 at 21:45:19 (PST) [68.9.169.159]

"Seems to be propaganda of the Chinese government. The truth is that there are you have the choice to test both Southern Han communities of Central Chinese race as well as Hmong/Dai race. Of course, to make a genetic unit of North and South they will choose the those communities with the strongest possible Northern features which can be found in the South for the tests. The majority who have Hmong/DAi genes are not tested, I suppose."

That is the most concocted story I 've read so far. Yeah, "I suppose" is right. That is not how scientists work. Plus, studies are usually done by collaboration from different scientific groups in different countries. And plus, physical features do not have a point-for-point corrolation with y-chromosomal closeness. And there are no separate communities that look different. Differences occur within populations. Where do you get this stuff? Lemme guess, you're an X-Files fan.
another voice Monday, November 25, 2002 at 21:23:29 (PST) [68.9.169.159]

I know there are too many people on this board writing negative things about other Asian groups- it's so sad.

Anyhow, I would like to share what I feel are the strengths of the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans. These are only my opinion and you may disagree. I apologize if I offend anyone with any of these and also apologize for any board generalizations. There are exceptions to all of these:

Chinese- are shrewd, cunning; if they work together, they can be force to be reckeon with.

Japanese- diligent and very resourceful people.

Koreans- are very determined people, have lots of heart and passion in whatever they do.

Again, these are only my opinion and there are exceptions to the above. I have not given enough thought to make comments about other Asian groups.
Don't Sell (Pax Asiana) Friday, November 22, 2002 at 08:42:34 (PST) [68.4.86.32]

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS