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.
It's possible. There was no such division between Southeast Asia and China a few thousand years ago. People migrated back and forth. Southeast Asia and present time-Southern China were all occupied by AustroAsiatics and Austronesians aka Southeast Asians. I don't know why there are some close-minded people (you probably know whom ) look at the present division and say things like "They have lived in Southeast Asia for whatever thousand years" , "We have lived in Southwestern China for whatever thousand years" like it is a privilege! Well, they are only ethnic minority in Southern China
Exactly...Southern China wasn't even cultural 'sinitic' until say from 200 BC, and even today the sinification is not complete...What is 'Sinitic' or 'Viet' changes over time, some people act like Chinese culture has remained unchanged for millenia...
So? What about it? Why do you pull Vietnam out like it is an argument when I said nothing about it?
I doubt it. The reason Mon-Khmer language speaking people and other Southeast Asians look darker today because they mixed with Indians and negrito aboriginals. Northern Vietnamese, Tai/Dai and other Austronesian, AustroAsiatic ethnic minorities in Southern China are still lighter because they didn't have a chance to mix with Indians and negrito aboriginals.
There are no Austronesian(Filipino/Indonesian/Malaysian/Taiwanese aboriginal) speaker in S.China. Tai-Kadai(Lao/Thai/Dai/Tai/Zhuang/other Tai tribe) are the biggest ethnic minority in S.China(actually biggest out of whole China with population of 23 millions). There are only a few Mon-Khmer groups in S.China such as Wa/Blang/Deang.
Here are Mon-Khmer(AustroAsiatic) in S.China.
Wa(Va) people
All of those people above are Mon-Khmer speaker who living in China. So according to your logic they definitely didn't mixed with Indian or Negritos like Mon-Khmer people in SEA like the Khmer(Cambodian).
But yet, why those people still having same combo of facial construction of flat broad face+flat broad nose+strong squarish jawline+strong prominent cheekbone as well as dark skin just like Mon-Khmer in SEA like Cambodian since they are living in S.China and definitely didn't mixed with Indian or Negritos like Mon-Khmer in SEA(your logic) as well as living in colder climate too.. Can you give some explaination?
Here is Mon-Khmer in Southeast Asia, the Khmer(Cambodian).
For Vietnamese, the Northerner one maybe light skin(because mixed with Han-Chinese during 1000 years of occupation). But most of Vietnamese still shared same facial construction with the rest of Mon-Khmer family(Wa/Bland/De'ang/Khmer).
Today Vietnamese from Hanoi(basically hybrid of true Mon-Khmer Vietnamese(Dong Son) and Han-Chinese invader)
lol. I bet you don't know that the Tai-Kadai language speaking people ARE the Austronesians and AustroAsiatics themselves? lol. but why are they lighter-skinned while the others are darker-skinned? Where do you think Tai-Kadai language speaking people were from? lol. I bet you don't know ancient Chinese language had some Austronesian and AustroAsiatic vocabulary? lol. Present HAN Chinese in Southern China also carry Austronesian and AustroAsiatic admixture themselves! Han Southern Chinese don't look the same as Han Northern Chinese, they are usually seen as shorter, tanner, double eyelids. The fact that Tai-Kadai language speaking people used to roam in Southern China with such large population like you said, now you get from whom Han Southern Chinese people get these traits from Obviously, a small number of some ethnic minorities above don't contribute much.
You heard about something called "out-of-taiwan migration"? After you learn it, you'll know why these tribes look dark . In your close-minded mind, Austronesian genes and AustroAsiatic genes must mean "dark" because of how those people look today. Tai-Kadai language speaking people were the same as them, why are they lighter? lol
Bottom line, why do you try to prove so bad how dark other people are? to make you look a little lighter?
Now Tai-Kadai speaker people(Lao/Thai/Dai/Zhuang/other Tai tribe) who also living next to those Mon-Khmer speaker people(Vietnamese/Khmer/Wa/Blang/De'ang) I posted above in the same exact climate of S.China.
Tai-Kadai speaker obviously look different when compare to Mon-Khmer speaker(for the most part like 90% of the time, but there are a few outliner who might pass as Mon-Khmer), doesn't matter even if both groups are sitting next to one another in the same climate of S.China. Not just only skin tone that is different but also facial construction like nose/cheekcone/jawline also different from one another.
Tai-Kadai people in S.China(people of Tai-Kadai group make up as the biggest ethnic minority of China(not Han-Chinese) with population of 23 millions) Dai/Tai people(people who considered as pure Lao/Thai who is make up majority of Laos/Thailand/South-western China today)
Tai-Kadai speaker(Lao/Thai/Dai/Zhuang/other Tai tribe) when compare to Mon-Khmer speaker(Vietnamese/Khmer/Wa/Blang/De'ang), Tai-Kadai people will have facial construction of skinnier face+lesser prominent cheekbone+jawline will not be so strong squarish+nose will be pointier.
Yes, the story of both the Vietnamese and Chinese civilisations has many parallels. These are the boundaries of the Shang dynasty around 1000 BC:
The original tribes that became Chinese and united under the name 'Huaxia' probably about 5000 years ago (the genesis of an identifiable Chinese civilisation) on the Wei tributary of the Huang He (yellow river) in Shaanxi, Gansu, Henan.etc probably looked more like Tibetans and Quang than a lot of central and southern Chinese who are mixed with the natives who lived there before. Most of the ethnic minorities are actually pretty genetically similar to the neighbouring Han anyway.
The Vietnamese civilisation was centered around the Red River delta, Khmers were centered around the lower reaches of the Mekong, Lake Tonle Sap. Vietnamese are probably more like the ethnic minorities of Southern China than Khmer. Later mixing with Khmer and Cham probably gave them those features.
Original/true Vietnamese maybe related to minority in China but with the Mon-Khmer group(Wa/Blang/De'ang) and not the Tai-Kadai group(Lao/Thai/Dai/Zhuang), because Vietnamese is(and were) Mon-khmer speaker as well as the original costume that look extremely to the Wa(Va). So if original/true Vietnamese are related with ethnic minority of S.China then it would be other Mon-Khmer speaking people like Wa/Blang/De'ang, and not the Tai-Kadai group like Lao/Thai/Dai/Zhuang.
^ If you think these Tai-Kadai speakers are "pure" and look like that, then the pure Austronesian and AustroAsiatic people must have looked like that because those are what Tai-Kadai speakers are made of.
Original/true Vietnamese maybe related to minority in China but with the Mon-Khmer group(Wa/Blang/De'ang) and not the Tai-Kadai group(Lao/Thai/Dai/Zhuang), because Vietnamese is(and were) Mon-khmer speaker as well as the original costume that look extremely to the Wa(Va). So if original/true Vietnamese are related with ethnic minority of S.China then it would be other Mon-Khmer speaking people like Wa/Blang/De'ang, and not the Tai-Kadai group like Lao/Thai/Dai/Zhuang.
Do you know what the costume and culture of the Tai-Kadai speakers were 2000-3000 thousand years ago? From what I read, their costumes and culture were pretty the same as the Mon-Khmer tribes and Taiwanese aboriginals
You're too fond of using linguistics to formulate identity between disparate groups. It's pretty obvious that modern Thai-Siamese speak a Tai-Kradai language as a results of language shift (where a language spreads into a population) rather than displacement of Mon-Khmer natives by Tai-speaking peoples.
If language was so intimately connected to a person's genes than how do you proposed you and I being able to communicate in English despite having no English genes or ancestry. Right, this is because one can learn to speak a new language regardless of one's genetic makeup. Also hence why children of immigrants can speak the language of the host country perfectly while their parents struggle despite no radical genetic change.
There are some prominent examples of language shifts in Southeast Asia like for example Tibeto-Burmic languages infiltrating Mon Kingdoms in Myanmar; Austro-asiatic language shift in Northeastern India among the Munda tribes; and Tai-Kradai languages in Thailand.
I know your entire gimmick is that you want to connect Thai-Siamese people to Tai-speaking tribes of Southwestern China but the truth is that population genetic studies shows that Thai-Siamese people are primarily of Mon-Khmer descent who shifted to speaking a Tai-Kradai language. This is not to say that you don't have direct Dai/Tai heritage but you are obviously in complete denial of your majority Mon-Khmer heritage probably in due to very successful royalist propaganda from the Thai monarchy which emphasized pure Tai heritage.
You don't want to hear or believe it but Vietnamese people are actually more genetically related to 'pure' Dai or Tai peoples than Thai-Siamese or Lao people despite speaking a totally different language. It's funny how that worked out actually: Vietnamese are a Tai people who now speak a Mon-Khmer language while Thai-Siamese are a Mon-Khmer people who now speak a Tai language. It makes complete sense since Tai speaking minorities in Northern Vietnam are virtually indistinguishable from ordinary Vietnamese.
tl;dr
Linguistics can lie about your true origins but genetics never will
Original/true Vietnamese maybe related to minority in China but with the Mon-Khmer group(Wa/Blang/De'ang) and not the Tai-Kadai group(Lao/Thai/Dai/Zhuang), because Vietnamese is(and were) Mon-khmer speaker as well as the original costume that look extremely to the Wa(Va). So if original/true Vietnamese are related with ethnic minority of S.China then it would be other Mon-Khmer speaking people like Wa/Blang/De'ang, and not the Tai-Kadai group like Lao/Thai/Dai/Zhuang.
As you should know, language and genetics often do not correlate. Hungarians don't speak an Indo-European language, yet they're obviously closer to Czechs or Poles genetically than the Sinhalese or Sri Lanka or Bengalis from Bangladesh and West Bengal in India.
The Vietnamese in Hanoi clearly look very similar to the ethnic minorities of S.China and the Southern Han Chinese in places like Yunnan, Guangxi, Guizhou, Guangdong, Fujian even. Even the other Mon-Khmer speakers probably came from China in the last 4000 years at the latest. Negritos inhabited that area before then. Some even include such far-flung languages as Munda in India as Austro-asiatic. The relationship between Vietnamese and Khmer is questionable. My Vietnamese friend says she can understand almost no Khmer. Should they really be in the same family?
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.
) look at the present division and say things like "They have lived in Southeast Asia for whatever thousand years" , "We have lived in Southwestern China for whatever thousand years" like it is a privilege! Well, they are only ethnic minority in Southern China 
