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.
^ The south is more diverse but exactly how does that prove that East Asians originated from the South?
If 50% of EA haplotypes were found in SEA only, it could also mean these haplotypes went to SEA only, contributing to the already existing diversity in SEA.
The science is pretty clear that human settlement in Asia started in the south. That said, the migrations to the Great White Northern Asian steppes and tundra happened many thousands of years ago. I posted the studies a few pages ago, which included many Asian researchers.
The science is pretty clear that human settlement in Asia started in the south. That said, the migrations to the Great White Northern Asian steppes and tundra happened many thousands of years ago. I posted the studies a few pages ago, which included many Asian researchers.
I've seen that paper last year. The south is more diverse. That still doesn't really prove that East Asians originated from the South.
Many people in the US and Canadians and Australians seem to do. I don't know about others in the western world.
Some people say that South-East Asians look like East Asians and have close enough cultural ties enough to be put in the same group but others think not. There are other influences in South-East Asia that are not East Asian-related, such as Spanish in the Philippines from colonial influence, Islam in South-East Asia in religion in places like Indonesia and Malaysia, plus ancient India influenced its civilizations.
Do you think the reason most lump SE Asians with E Asians is due to physical appearance or culture or both and do you think they should be treated distinctively enough as another category of people in Asia (Like South Asians, West Asians are their own categories etc.) or equally treated as a region between South and East Asia?
Do you think it is fair to racially lump Saudi Arabians in the same category as Swedes for example under the umbrella of "White" ? Because that is what the U.S census does, even though Swedes and Saudi Arabians look nothing like each other.
^ Honestly, those are your examples to prove there are 'black' Mongoloids? Their skin isn't close to Africans or South Indians.
Where did I try to "prove" black mongoloids? There are and have always been black (dark skinned) people with high cheek bones and "slanted" eyes (epicanthic folds). First and foremost starting in Africa you have black Africans with those features not to mention people in Asia. Human adaptation to environmental conditions is the basis of all phenotype and the "Asian" phenotype did not start in Asia, it started in Africa from Africans adapting to a wide range of conditions in Africa. Epicanthic folds are not an adaptation to cold northern environments, it is an adaptation to bright sun reflecting off sand or snow and blowing dust in the wind, which are not unique to Asia.
What I did say was that the populations who settled Asia, first moved into the South of Asia. The implication is that this population was already diverse containing a wide range of different types, including the aboriginal Indian, Australasian, Negrito, Pacific Islander, South East Asian and proto-Mongoloid phenotypes. And from this diverse population all these other Asian "types" evolved. Unfortunately, the last 200 years of European race thinking has created this absurd notion of disconnected disjointed "types" of humans in different parts of the world which is pure absolute non sense. It paints a picture in Asia of a single Asian "race" called Mongoloid which evolved separately from all other populations in the environs of Northern Central Asia, which then went on and produced all Asian features. Unfortunately that is false. Human diversity in features were already there and those phenotypes were already in place as a function of human evolution long before humans moved north.
Where did I try to "prove" black mongoloids? There are and have always been black (dark skinned) people with high cheek bones and "slanted" eyes (epicanthic folds). First and foremost starting in Africa you have black Africans with those features not to mention people in Asia. Human adaptation to environmental conditions is the basis of all phenotype and the "Asian" phenotype did not start in Asia, it started in Africa from Africans adapting to a wide range of conditions in Africa. Epicanthic folds are not an adaptation to cold northern environments, it is an adaptation to bright sun reflecting off sand or snow and blowing dust in the wind, which are not unique to Asia.
What I did say was that the populations who settled Asia, first moved into the South of Asia. The implication is that this population was already diverse containing a wide range of different types, including the aboriginal Indian, Australasian, Negrito, Pacific Islander, South East Asian and proto-Mongoloid phenotypes. And from this diverse population all these other Asian "types" evolved. Unfortunately, the last 200 years of European race thinking has created this absurd notion of disconnected disjointed "types" of humans in different parts of the world which is pure absolute non sense. It paints a picture in Asia of a single Asian "race" called Mongoloid which evolved separately from all other populations in the environs of Northern Central Asia, which then went on and produced all Asian features. Unfortunately that is false. Human diversity in features were already there and those phenotypes were already in place as a function of human evolution long before humans moved north.
So many insights, really got my mind twisted. It seems everybody are analyzing them in a very complicated manner when in fact it just need simple explanation and observation. I personally think that East & SEA or what is called generally called Far-East could be qualified as one distinct region because of physical similarities(except for the eyes, umm color to some variation) and to some extent culture. Everyone has their opinion btw.
One more thing, probably due to centuries of migration and inter-mingling with each other SEA is more Austroloid(Austronesian-Mongoloid) nowadays with some bits of Melanesian. Some refer to it as Paleo-Mongoloids, the lesser Mongoloids with lesser epicanthic folds than the North. Again besides the eyes, color variation, some facial features you would see insignificant variation between East & SE Asians so technically it would be fair to say that they can be categorized as one. IMO
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.
