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.
I didnt say Filipinos look like East Asians, but they look similar enough that people would think they're part of the same race. Maybe 20% of Filipinos look too Australoid to even be associated with any Mainland Asians, but 80% look akin to East Asians. And many Japanese actually look Southeast Asian. There is a lot more overlap between Japanese and Filipinos than there is between Koreans and Filipinos.
I agree that many Japanese look Southeast Asian, but saying it's hard to distinguish Filipinos and Japanese is still a stretch. Post some examples of that 80% who you believe look akin to East Asians.
I look at some of your comments are not even related threads ...you always bring RACE , skin color, genetic, DNA .. bla bla bla? Whether you are an Anthropology?OR it is very important to you and constantly compare ?!!!?? ^ ^
No it doesn't make sense. The history of South East Asia and North East Asia are totally different.
That said the last 500 years of movements of populations from China into SEA at large has caused a shift in features from the dark aboriginal SEA type to the more pale NEA type. But that recent melding should be considered just that, a recent event.
In fact, more often than not, what you are seeing today is an attempt in some ways to redo the image of Asia where all Asians are supposed to be homogenous and trend towards NEA pale stereotypical Mongoloid features. Which is pure historical nonsense. And that even goes back to the Mongols, the so called prototypical Mongoloids, because even they have black skin among them, pointing out the obvious nonsense of this obsession with features, because at the end of the day all these features came from the same place.
Asians are heterogenous and there are many different cultures, feature and traditions among them historically, no matter the fact that much of SEA today is more closer to China in terms of politics, economics and large segments of the population than was the case even 150 years ago. But that does not make all Asians the same. The human presence in South Asia is far older than that of NEA and the diversity in SEA is(or was) much greater than NEA, reflecting the age of the populations there. To try and smooth all that over and say well "they all are just NEA looking" is ridiculous.
And this is supported by recent genetic studies:
Quote:
Abstract
Asia harbors substantial cultural and linguistic diversity, but the geographic structure of genetic variation across the continent remains enigmatic. Here we report a large-scale survey of autosomal variation from a broad geographic sample of Asian human populations. Our results show that genetic ancestry is strongly correlated with linguistic affiliations as well as geography. Most populations show relatedness within ethnic/linguistic groups, despite prevalent gene flow among populations. More than 90% of East Asian (EA) haplotypes could be found in either Southeast Asian (SEA) or Central-South Asian (CSA) populations and show clinal structure with haplotype diversity decreasing from south to north. Furthermore, 50% of EA haplotypes were found in SEA only and 5% were found in CSA only, indicating that SEA was a major geographic source of EA populations
In general, it does not matter for our purposes whether ethnic differences reflect physical attributes of groups (skin color, facial features) or long-lasting social conventions (language, marriage within the group, cultural norms) or simple social definition (self-identification, identification by outsiders). When people persistently identify with a particular group, they form potential interest groups that can be manipulated by political leaders, who often choose to mobilize some coalition of ethnic groups (“us”) to the exclusion of others (“them”). Politicians also sometimes can mobilize support by singling out some groups for persecution, where hatred of the minority group is complementary to some policy the politician wishes to pursue
No it doesn't make sense. The history of South East Asia and North East Asia are totally different.
That said the last 500 years of movements of populations from China into SEA at large has caused a shift in features from the dark aboriginal SEA type to the more pale NEA type. But that recent melding should be considered just that, a recent event.
In fact, more often than not, what you are seeing today is an attempt in some ways to redo the image of Asia where all Asians are supposed to be homogenous and trend towards NEA pale stereotypical Mongoloid features. Which is pure historical nonsense. And that even goes back to the Mongols, the so called prototypical Mongoloids, because even they have black skin among them, pointing out the obvious nonsense of this obsession with features, because at the end of the day all these features came from the same place.
Asians are heterogenous and there are many different cultures, feature and traditions among them historically, no matter the fact that much of SEA today is more closer to China in terms of politics, economics and large segments of the population than was the case even 150 years ago. But that does not make all Asians the same. The human presence in South Asia is far older than that of NEA and the diversity in SEA is(or was) much greater than NEA, reflecting the age of the populations there. To try and smooth all that over and say well "they all are just NEA looking" is ridiculous.
Totally different? Well the histories of Vietnam and Thailand are pretty closely linked with China, as is Burma, Laos.etc. Chinese have indeed influenced a lot of SEA. Of course the original people there were dark skinned negritos, different from today's South-East Asians. Mongols had black skin? Now thats getting ridiculous. Those same people probably claim Jesus had black skin too.
No one is claiming there are no differences, but the relationship is obvious.
No it doesn't make sense. The history of South East Asia and North East Asia are totally different.
That said the last 500 years of movements of populations from China into SEA at large has caused a shift in features from the dark aboriginal SEA type to the more pale NEA type. But that recent melding should be considered just that, a recent event.
In fact, more often than not, what you are seeing today is an attempt in some ways to redo the image of Asia where all Asians are supposed to be homogenous and trend towards NEA pale stereotypical Mongoloid features. Which is pure historical nonsense. And that even goes back to the Mongols, the so called prototypical Mongoloids, because even they have black skin among them, pointing out the obvious nonsense of this obsession with features, because at the end of the day all these features came from the same place.
Asians are heterogenous and there are many different cultures, feature and traditions among them historically, no matter the fact that much of SEA today is more closer to China in terms of politics, economics and large segments of the population than was the case even 150 years ago. But that does not make all Asians the same. The human presence in South Asia is far older than that of NEA and the diversity in SEA is(or was) much greater than NEA, reflecting the age of the populations there. To try and smooth all that over and say well "they all are just NEA looking" is ridiculous.
People keep on bringing up genes and features when they have nothing to to do with culture and cultural links. It's screwball thinking that isn't based on modern understanding of sociology and anthropology.
If you want me to take you through some thought experiments and look at at the empirical/historical evidence regarding culture and cultural diffuesion, we'll do so; but the point remains that genes in themselves have nothing to do with culture and attempting to use them to establish cultural connections is a fallacious viewpoint remains the same. I'll gladly take that debate up with anyone even though it'll be like reinventing the wheel.
I agree that many Japanese look Southeast Asian, but saying it's hard to distinguish Filipinos and Japanese is still a stretch. Post some examples of that 80% who you believe look akin to East Asians.
I didnt say that Japanese and Filipinos were hard to distinguish, but generally they look like they're part of the same "race" like Spaniards and Germans.
I didnt say that Japanese and Filipinos were hard to distinguish, but generally they look like they're part of the same "race" like Spaniards and Germans.
Spaniards and Germans very much share caucasoid-like features and facial structure, such as the deep eyes, high nose bridge, relatively wider lips, chiselled features, etc. You can't say the same for Japanese and Filipino. The Japanese-Filipina mix doesn't even look Japanese, she looks like a light-skinned Malay to me. The difference is so clear that I've yet to hear foreigners talk about how they confused Filipinos and other East Asians.
I didnt say that Japanese and Filipinos were hard to distinguish, but generally they look like they're part of the same "race" like Spaniards and Germans.
Some Japanese look SEA as well and could pass easily in the PI.
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.
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.
I look at some of your comments are not even related threads ...you always bring RACE , skin color, genetic, DNA .. bla bla bla? Whether you are an Anthropology?OR it is very important to you and constantly compare ?!!!?? ^ ^
? what ? I only ask to you ,because your comment frequently deviated from TOPIC! ^ ^
