U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Asia
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 12-26-2013, 08:58 PM
 
101 posts, read 259,225 times
Reputation: 31

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postman View Post
All of them? That's odd. Sure they weren't Middle Easterners? There's quite a few of them in Malaysia now. But yeah, there've always been northern Indians in Malaysia, since colonial times, but the dominant ones are the dark skinned Tamils. Even some Tamils though have lighter skinned, but I would find it strange if you didn't see any dark skinned Indians in KL they're everywhere.

Hence the old term 'Mongoloid' - they though the Mongolians were the best representative of the race. The Chinese can look pretty Mongoloid but a lot are a bit moderated, not as strongly Asiatic as Mongolians, Yakuts, Evenki, Koreans, although a lot in N.China are. A lot in S.China look more South-East Asian.

Yeah that's pretty typical, tan skin and blonde hair. Apparently she's had some work done too.
Yeah I know it's weird but I don't think I've seen any dark-skinned ones. I see them the most while crossing the street and from what I can remember, they were wearing working clothes and look like they're local or something.

Mongolians and other Northern Asian races may have some overlaps in looks with the North/East Asian races, but one thing for sure is that they don't even share the same genotype, hence not really the same race as a whole. Take Y-DNA marker for example. Mongols are dominated by the letter C, whereas Chinese, Korean and Japanese are dominated by O. You can see it in more detail here. Simply put, O3 indicates East Asian and O2 Southeast Asian. Koreans probably got their Mongolic look from their maternal line or something, and Japanese have northern (as in something like Northern Chinese) maternal line hence putting them as overall East Asian despite the high percentage of O2 and D.

While it's true the very northern races have rougher features, that doesn't mean the further south the more gracile though. The very southern races like the Malays/Filipinos/Sarawakians have rough/robust features as well, I've seen many who have well-defined square jaws. Plus it doesn't help that the more Austronesian-looking Chinese I know have big faces as well whereas the rest have small-medium oval face. I also remember seeing plenty of Viets with big faces.

Last edited by Bastardised; 12-26-2013 at 09:09 PM..
Rate this post positively

 
Old 12-26-2013, 10:59 PM
 
Location: Melbourne, Australia
9,781 posts, read 17,733,296 times
Reputation: 2833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bastardised View Post
Yeah I know it's weird but I don't think I've seen any dark-skinned ones. I see them the most while crossing the street and from what I can remember, they were wearing working clothes and look like they're local or something.

Mongolians and other Northern Asian races may have some overlaps in looks with the North/East Asian races, but one thing for sure is that they don't even share the same genotype, hence not really the same race as a whole. Take Y-DNA marker for example. Mongols are dominated by the letter C, whereas Chinese, Korean and Japanese are dominated by O. You can see it in more detail here. Simply put, O3 indicates East Asian and O2 Southeast Asian. Koreans probably got their Mongolic look from their maternal line or something, and Japanese have northern (as in something like Northern Chinese) maternal line hence putting them as overall East Asian despite the high percentage of O2 and D.

While it's true the very northern races have rougher features, that doesn't mean the further south the more gracile though. The very southern races like the Malays/Filipinos/Sarawakians have rough/robust features as well, I've seen many who have well-defined square jaws. Plus it doesn't help that the more Austronesian-looking Chinese I know have big faces as well whereas the rest have small-medium oval face. I also remember seeing plenty of Viets with big faces.
Well how we categorise humans is subjective. Would one consider Kazakhs or Uzbeks Mongoloid or Caucasoid? Mongolians are clearly broadly the same race as East Asians. I'd say Mongolians, Manchu and Koreans all look kind of similar, while Southern Chinese are in between N.Chinese and Vietnamese. Northern and Central Chinese are kind of like Tibetans. Japanese seem a mix of Siberian, central Chinese, Korean and Ainu/Jomon native.

I would say in general they do have more 'gracile' features, although some features, like a tendency towards shorter limbs, are a feature of most Mongoloid populations from Java to Mongolia. Yes, large faces seem a feature of Austronesians, with large features - large eyes, nose.etc. Vietnamese and Southern Chinese often have rather round faces too I notice.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-30-2013, 05:35 AM
 
104 posts, read 176,677 times
Reputation: 141
Filipinos are big on marrying white men. But it's mostly for money and status. Love is usually a byproduct that comes afterwards if they're lucky.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-30-2013, 08:46 AM
 
101 posts, read 259,225 times
Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postman View Post
Well how we categorise humans is subjective. Would one consider Kazakhs or Uzbeks Mongoloid or Caucasoid? Mongolians are clearly broadly the same race as East Asians. I'd say Mongolians, Manchu and Koreans all look kind of similar, while Southern Chinese are in between N.Chinese and Vietnamese. Northern and Central Chinese are kind of like Tibetans. Japanese seem a mix of Siberian, central Chinese, Korean and Ainu/Jomon native.

I would say in general they do have more 'gracile' features, although some features, like a tendency towards shorter limbs, are a feature of most Mongoloid populations from Java to Mongolia. Yes, large faces seem a feature of Austronesians, with large features - large eyes, nose.etc. Vietnamese and Southern Chinese often have rather round faces too I notice.
Mongolians are only the same race as East Asians if you believe in the 3 big races theory - Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid. But then again, it's just one of the proposed way of categorising humans, it's not something definite. Mongolians and East Asians are still genetically different and phenotypes are strongly linked to genotypes. As for whether Kazakhs is Mongoloid or Caucasoid, the chart I showed earlier clearly showed that they're Eurasian. The 2 largest portions of their Y-DNA are represented by C and R. R is Caucasian. The C has larger portion and the rest of the smaller portions have more connection to the other Northern Asian races, so they're Eurasian with more Asian (Mongolic) than Caucasian in them, which also kinda reflects on their appearance. I believe one can tell from their appearance that their Asian portion is Mongolic and not East Asian.

Manchu and Koreans have more overlaps with the Sinid appearance, many of them look East Asian and Manchus are not usually grouped with Mongolians in terms of appearance. As for Tibetans, one thing I know is that they share a similar origin with the Chinese but based on their pictures alone I'm not convinced that the modern Tibetan generally looks very Sinid. Some of them look Sinid, some look odd and some look more Mongolic.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-30-2013, 09:03 AM
 
Location: Melbourne, Australia
9,781 posts, read 17,733,296 times
Reputation: 2833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bastardised View Post
Mongolians are only the same race as East Asians if you believe in the 3 big races theory - Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid. But then again, it's just one of the proposed way of categorising humans, it's not something definite. Mongolians and East Asians are still genetically different and phenotypes are strongly linked to genotypes. As for whether Kazakhs is Mongoloid or Caucasoid, the chart I showed earlier clearly showed that they're Eurasian. The 2 largest portions of their Y-DNA are represented by C and R. R is Caucasian. The C has larger portion and the rest of the smaller portions have more connection to the other Northern Asian races, so they're Eurasian with more Asian (Mongolic) than Caucasian in them, which also kinda reflects on their appearance. I believe one can tell from their appearance that their Asian portion is Mongolic and not East Asian.

Manchu and Koreans have more overlaps with the Sinid appearance, many of them look East Asian and Manchus are not usually grouped with Mongolians in terms of appearance. As for Tibetans, one thing I know is that they share a similar origin with the Chinese but based on their pictures alone I'm not convinced that the modern Tibetan generally looks very Sinid. Some of them look Sinid, some look odd and some look more Mongolic.
Well I think the 3 race theory is a simplification...phenotypes bleed into each other, there are no definitive boundaries between groups. I mean anyone can tell on looks alone that Mongolians and Chinese are both much closer to each other than either is to Europeans or Africans. Tibetans can often be confused with Chinese.

Yes Manchu and Korean are probably even closer together. I doubt anyone could say that the Empress Dowager or Puyi look Manchu on sight alone (although perhaps a long face, sharp nose, typical of NE China is a clue), dunno how 'pure' Manchu they are anyway. China is so diverse anyway...Han in the Northeast are more Manchu, those in the South more Austronesian.etc.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-30-2013, 09:40 AM
 
101 posts, read 259,225 times
Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postman View Post
Well I think the 3 race theory is a simplification...phenotypes bleed into each other, there are no definitive boundaries between groups. I mean anyone can tell on looks alone that Mongolians and Chinese are both much closer to each other than either is to Europeans or Africans. Tibetans can often be confused with Chinese.

Yes Manchu and Korean are probably even closer together. I doubt anyone could say that the Empress Dowager or Puyi look Manchu on sight alone (although perhaps a long face, sharp nose, typical of NE China is a clue), dunno how 'pure' Manchu they are anyway. China is so diverse anyway...Han in the Northeast are more Manchu, those in the South more Austronesian.etc.
You're right that there are no definitive boundaries between groups. Same for between Asians and Europeans or Africans actually, although they're clearly more distant than between East Asians and Mongolians. However, despite the overlap of phenotypes, it doesn't mean that there are no typicals of each group. For example, one can tell that someone like this or this or this or this doesn't look like your typical East Asian eventhough they can pass as one of the "extraordinary" ones, but not pass as one of the Caucasians or Africans. Still don't mean they're the same thing though. Again, Empress Dowager just barely looked Han Chinese but atypical.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-30-2013, 10:02 AM
 
Location: Melbourne, Australia
9,781 posts, read 17,733,296 times
Reputation: 2833
Pic 1 could pass for Korean, but I'm assuming she's a Siberian native/Inuit.

Pic 2 looks quite clearly Tungid, but obviously could blend in China much easier than non-Asians.

Pic 3 I see plenty of Southern Chinese who look like this, nothing unusual.

Pic 4 is pretty typical in Southern China or Singapore, Taiwan.etc. He's Chinese, I see.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-30-2013, 10:12 AM
 
101 posts, read 259,225 times
Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postman View Post
Pic 1 could pass for Korean, but I'm assuming she's a Siberian native/Inuit.

Pic 2 looks quite clearly Tungid, but obviously could blend in China much easier than non-Asians.

Pic 3 I see plenty of Southern Chinese who look like this, nothing unusual.

Pic 4 is pretty typical in Southern China or Singapore, Taiwan.etc. He's Chinese, I see.
All of them could pass for East Asian, but are not typical obviously. Lee Chong Wei and Lin Dan are both southerners, you don't think LCW look more typical than Lin Dan? Lol. All my friends, all of whom are southerners actually thought Lin Dan looks pretty Malay. We can draw overlapping circles to represent overlappings phenotypes, but in order for the circles to exist there has to be a typical for each group in the first place.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-30-2013, 10:19 AM
 
Location: Melbourne, Australia
9,781 posts, read 17,733,296 times
Reputation: 2833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bastardised View Post
All of them could pass for East Asian, but are not typical obviously. Lee Chong Wei and Lin Dan are both southerners, you don't think LCW look more typical than Lin Dan? Lol. All my friends, all of whom are southerners actually thought Lin Dan looks pretty Malay. We can draw overlapping circles to represent overlappings phenotypes, but in order for the circles to exist there has to be a typical for each group in the first place.
Many S. Chinese look like Lin Dan, at least Singaporean/Malaysian Chinese, it's not unusual at all. Likewise LCW isn't unusual, although his look seems more reminiscent of mainland China too. Also Vietnam. I know Chinese tend to look different to Mongolians, Japanese, I can sometimes tell, sometimes I can't.

Where are you from, btw?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-30-2013, 10:34 AM
 
101 posts, read 259,225 times
Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postman View Post
Many S. Chinese look like Lin Dan, at least Singaporean/Malaysian Chinese, it's not unusual at all. Likewise LCW isn't unusual, although his look seems more reminiscent of mainland China too. Also Vietnam. I know Chinese tend to look different to Mongolians, Japanese, I can sometimes tell, sometimes I can't.

Where are you from, btw?
I'm Malaysian Chinese, and on the contrary to your experience I don't see many Chinese who look like Lin Dan at all. There are those who look more southern and some who look more northern, but I can tell that both groups are not atypical as East Asians. It's hard to explain. Likewise, there are Koreans and Japanese who don't look very Chinese but are clearly East Asians.
Rate this post positively
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.



All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top