Views: 7509|Replies: 10

since all the topics here are like the same thing over and over again lets discu [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 4

Post time 2005-7-15 22:20:33 |Display all floors
ok cos so boring all politics related kind of stuff so anyway...

do u think chinese people and japanese look similar or are there substle differences? i think chinese ppl look vietnamese

i always get this feeling that china is not a part of asia, not asian and japanese ppl regard chinese ppl as not asian looking or similar to them because they look more crapper than them i dunno why i think that way

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2005-7-16 09:32:34 |Display all floors


and mongolians look a lot like koreans..really

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2005-7-16 10:00:07 |Display all floors

What the people here in the USA think...

as that there is no difference at all between Chinese and Japanese people. They are looked on as the same or as brothers. Ironic isn't it?

The Chinese here in this country have the best food or at least they have the most restaurants. Chinese food has become a norm in the USA and especially for take-outs.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2005-7-16 15:49:36 |Display all floors

They are looked on as the same

Yeah, most non-Asian Americans don't distinguish between Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2005-7-19 18:39:25 |Display all floors


(edited and hopefully improved)
To say that korean and japanese looks same is equivalent to saying that all European looks same.

To say that chinese and korean looks same is equivalent to saying that all African looks same.

To say that all chinese looks same is equivalent to saying that all latino looks same.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2005-7-20 05:53:11 |Display all floors

What biochemist said
What I was trying to say, which you did not capture, is that
the sinitic phenotype that everyone seems drawn to compared
to can be imagined as a bulge in the 2 dimensional
geographic profile of the earth bulging from southern china
close to the myanmar border that close to the border was
highly displacive, what that means is that the people who
were originally close to this group got pushed and shrank,
and some admixed. Those admixes themselves pushed outward,
displacing peoples on their fringes except the tibetian
plateau where wet rice agriculture was implausible.
I did not say the mongols were phenotypically Han, what I
said is there is signficant evidence for recent admixture.
If you look at some of the literature, some spotty groups in
southwestern china appear to be sources mongol HLA as on
occasion certain groups were not displaced by the expanding
bulge. When one gets to mongolia itself, while there is alot
of homogeneity within the mongolian groups, the HLA shows
mutliple regions of recent ancestry and I can show
convincing evidence that SW china, korea/tw aboriginals,
have contributed. On a sort of medium time fraim it is
possible to show there was older contribution from the
middle east and europe, and over the oldest time frames it
appears the korean/tw aborinal links are from austonesia.
The sinitic chinese, S. Han, are different in origin.
1. There are markedly fewer haplotypes that appear to have
come from western eurasia.
2. The haplotypes they have the look as if they might have
come from western eurasia appear to have come through south
3. There is less evidence of a west pacific rim austronesian
origin, and a different compliment of genes shared with
Tiawan aboriginals.
4. A close look at 3 subgroups of taiwan aboriginals and
chinese reveals that in all probability 2000 years ago the
coastal 'chinese' were not actually chinese, but other
ethnic groups. These ethnic groups had more in common with
koreans and japanese than the 'expanding' bulge population.
I strongly suspect after the time of Guang Di there were
migrations of these peoples into taiwan, ryuky, Japan, korea
and other points north.

I can give some exacts here.
The S.Han share alot haplotypes, some of the very long
haplotypes (indicating recent common ancestry) with the
Thai, with vietnamese, with certain indonesian groups. The
have similar haplotypes with tibetian; but the specifics of
those haplotypes reveal a much deeper branching (sister).

As one heads north this very 'popular' asian motives begin
to dilute and by the latitudes of mongolia, orochon, ainu
these patterns are not observed. However patterns observed
in the peoples who lived north of the bulge and are still
living approximately where their ancestors did (because the
microlocales where they live are not suitable for certain
agrarian practices) have haplotypes in common with the
mongols and other peoples to the north. What this means is
that the phenotype represented by the chinese is largely but
not completely the result of an essentially modern
techno/genetic expansion. Mongols were once much similar to
the peoples who lived in china 1000s of years ago, but over
time, these peoples were compressed northward. Therefore
central chinese are probably more representative of southern
chinese 10,000 years ago than modern chinese. Northern
chinese are more representative of central chinese 10,000
years ago relative to modern central chinese, and mongols
are probably more representative of northern chinese 10,000
years ago relative to northern chinese.

So now one gets into a semantics probably, just what is a
chinese and how do mongols fit into this equation.

Chinese represent a rather shallow gradient extending from
burma to mongol northsouth and from uygistan to taiwan
aboriginal eastwest. This shallow gradient is dominated in
the south by a common recent ancestral group, whereas in the
north the southern gradient extends into and admixes with
several groups, a pre-existing gradient. To cut into the
mongol issue as the chinese gradient approaches the
mongolian regions the gradient rapidly changes as if the
mongols represent a barrier to northward propogation of
certain haplotypes. From an east west perspective the same
thing occurs in taiwan/philipines/ryukyu and Japan. It is
beyonf the scope here to discuss the complexities in

So from a genetic point of veiw mongols are not chinese,
but the mongols are not free of recent genetic contribution
from regions in china; however, they are free of genetic
contribution of the major recent expanding groups in china.
Therefore mongols have common ancestry with the pre-han
chinese that were living in-situ.
There has been, until recent times geneflow from highland
regions of asia, in fact there are noted commonalities
between the koreans, orochon, manchu, mongolians, and
tibetians and I posit that at some point this may have been
a part of a long range interacting cluster of people.
Because of its proximity to india, genes from south asia and
middle east can be picked up and carried eastward, though
specific evidence for diffusion is weak.
What about europe. One can tract the european advance with
the HLA DQ set DQ2.5 (DQA1*0501-DQB1*0201) this set appears
to have spread from the western Ilses (at higher
frequencies) or the Basque at lower frequencies. The
settlement of scandavia appears to have been fed from the
west, probably a shrinking glacial-Ireland in response to
deglaciation. The swedes have what appears to be admix
between more or less Irish and eastern european haplotypes
(70 to 30% approximately). And the norse appear to have
carried the DQ2.5 with them whereever they traveled. This
haplotype reaches the eastern turkic republics but does not
significantly reach past the transbiakal region prior to
russian expansion. In essense we can disregard historic
migrations eastward from european peoples.
There is however evidence from more than one prehistoric
migrations. There appears to have been a migration from the
western black sea region eastward. The haplotypes are found
in the Inuit, similar to the Yakuts, and to uygars and these
are found spottily over siberia and in some mongolian
groups. This may be the 'red-haired' people found in western
china that are increasingly discussed.
The older migrations from europe and middle east have
previously been discussed. The haplotypes brought by this
people 'largely' differentiate southern han from mongolians.
Like it or not.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2005-7-20 09:21:20 |Display all floors

Let me say this, I can distinguish most chinese from most
koreans, and most chinese from most mongols, however the
differences are largely probably due to the immediate
consequences of diet and environment. I can distinguish
Japanese from chinese, and I have been pretty good as
distinguishing Japanese of chinese ancestry from japanese of
korean andcestry. There is an apparent phenotypic backbone
gradient in Japan, the southern japanese often, in various
locals have phenotypic similarities to philipinos and
pacific rim peoples. Whereas the northern japanese often
look more like northern native americans and eskimoes, they
often look much more like siberians than koreans. However I
cannot, by appearance absolutelt distinguish japanese or
koreans from chinese, the reason is that some chinese have
recent links to korean (Or recently the links between korea
and some regions of china were broken as a result of
political and not migratory reasons). Therefore there are
chinese who look like japanese and koreans. In addition
there are people in Japan whose, almost, entire ancestry is
from china. I found after questioning a Japanese professor,
that his whole family came from one enclave in fukuokua in
which chinese settled and they tended to seldomly mix out of
this enclave, there are similar enclaves in nagasaki area,
in kobe area and other places in Japan. In fact, there are
chinese buddhist temples (of chinese design differential
from the more harmonious less guadi japanese design) and
these temples were built by and maintained by chinese
communities that settled in Japan. 1500 to 2400 years ago,
if you were involved in the west pacific rim trade, most
likely you were chinese, and in major port towns chinese
merchants were needed simply for the sake of record keeping
and transaction, defining ports for ships and this and that.
This trade gave china immense power that the emperors of
china frequently tried to exploit. One can think of the han
chinese from 2200 years ago to even modern times as a nation
that took opportunity to trade just as the british and the
hudson bay company, and if the opportunity came about they
would colonize and create more east indian styled situation,
where they would control what went on, this is what happened
to taiwan. Prior to about 600 years ago taiwan would not be
considered chinese, but alignable with the culture of the
ryukyuans and philipinos.
The chinese claim that they had expeditions that traveled
north past the northern japanese islands, I would not be
surprised if they did, since they traded more recently to
northern ports in the edo era, and if they reached kobe,
there was not geographic barrier that would stop traders
from exploring to the north. As a matter of fact I have
found traces of the 'bulge' haplotypes out of place in the
endemic population at the base of the Amur river. There is
no evidence that the 'bulge' haplotypes made it to the new
world to any measurable degree. The eastern siberian HLA
could be from traders or it might be from wife stealing from
Japan or Korea.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email:
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.