104 replies to this topic

[rnbwtrout]

ok, so let me put it this way...out of the simple y-dna profiles below, which is the most typical of a han chinese man? or, if you don't like my choices, you can make your own as to what you think the typical han chinese man y-dna should look like.

A.
30% O3a3c (M134)
20% O3a4 (JST002611)
10% O2a (M95)
5% C3 (M217)

or

B.
30% O2a (M95)
20% C3 (M217)
10% O3a4 (JST002611)
5% O3a3c (M134)

[Tazfelis]

ok, so let me put it this way...out of the simple y-dna profiles below, which is the most typical of a han chinese man? or, if you don't like my choices, you can make your own as to what you think the typical han chinese man y-dna should look like.

A.
30% O3a3c (M134)
20% O3a4 (JST002611)
10% O2a (M95)
5% C3 (M217)

or

B.
30% O2a (M95)
20% C3 (M217)
10% O3a4 (JST002611)
5% O3a3c (M134)

A.

[rnbwtrout]

A.

ok, i will first apologize and state that it is not my intention to make you look bad. from your statements about the y-dna reports and how you applied them, i could tell right away that you did not fully understand y-dna. i only wanted to make sure that was the case and the best way to do it was this test. i tried to make a way for you to save yourself by telling you that "if you don't like my choices, you can make your own."

the correct answer is neither. they are both wrong.

a man can only test positive for ONE y-dna haplogroup. his y-dna is 100% whatever haplogroup he tests positive for. there is no other haplogroup in his y-dna. y-dna reports are essentially a report to look at the make-up of a whole nation. it tells you what type and what percentage of individual y-dna haplogroups (ancestries) make up the identity of that nation.

Edited by rnbwtrout, 19 September 2011 - 01:34 AM.

[mohistManiac]

The first picture you have provided, Tazfelis, shows the broad gamut distribution of types in eastern Asian genetics. Obviously to the extent that these populations are isolated from one another you will get different genetic sampling results which vary from one another. However to the extent that these populations are also connected to one another you get the actual relations in the graph which approximate the degree of overlap and this would be from both assimilation and genetic branching.

Assimilation is the reason behind while there can exist different populations based on genetics it would still be ludicrous to assume a genetic basis as a conversion tool into determining what ethnicity someone is. For example going by the first half of the second picture you provide it seems that maybe some Tibetans are closely related to Singaporean Chinese. Perhaps they have migrated to Singapore coming from populations in China which have themselves either came from or experienced close ties amongst Tibetan groups. Either way, at least personally, I have never heard Singaporean Chinese rather identify with the Tibetan ethnicity. Also, notice Taiwanese in the second picture are shown both together with southern and northern Han in two different instances. Although you have not explained where you got these pictures from and their original intended purpose I can still say that it makes sense. Taiwan is just another place which facilitates the assimilation process and Taiwanese are likely related to both southern and northern Hans. As we already know, Hans are related to a whole bunch of things especially since we lump them in a general group of Han Chinese. However if you could explain where you got these from then perhaps it would be better to tell you exactly what it is you are looking at.

Concerning myths, while you and I are more appreciative of scientific discoveries, they are not entirely and utterly worthless. In fact they are often times the crown jewels that distinguish one ethnicity from another. Many different groups identify with Chiyou and although one can hardly argue just how their distinctive cultures relate they are at least related in this simple way by the defining cultural legacy this myth carries. The situation is same for the different groups of Han Chinese which identify with Chiyou's counterparts, Huang and Yan. Perhaps they may have even once revered their own forms of "Chiyou" but became gradually coaxed into revering Huang and Yan nevertheless.

[mohistManiac]

You are dodging the important part and choose to refute me by using myth. That is why I told you if you want to rely on myth then suit yourself. I believe in genetics and science. I notice most of your claim are sourceless.Try to refute me and prove the images that I posted to be wrong, by using genetic research. Process of assimilation can be detected from DNA alone.

It bothers me none to noodle at this some more but you should realize that sometimes you just contradict yourself without the slightest hesitation. You talk about the myths and incorporate them into your explanations as well or did you not say that if Chiyou's tribes assimilated into Huang and Yan's tribes then those peoples could hardly be considered the same Miao Hmong today? Here's what you said:

For your record, I'm not talking about Zhou dynasty period. I'm talking about during Three Sovereign and Five Emperors time because in the video, it said Chi You's tribe fused into Huang Di and Yan Di tribe, which I believe they are referring not that long after Battle of Zhuolu. Even if they do assimilate themselves, then chances are, it's not the same group as modern Miao/Hmong as genetic research has proven that Miao/Hmong genetic does not overlap with Han Chinese. It could be other different tribes under Chi You.

It certainly sounded as though you were trying to say something about Huang and Yan belonging to Han and Chiyou belonging to non Han. My contention on the issue of Han Chinese is that it likely incorporated peoples that would have no trouble identifying with a Chiyou type figure. After all is said however the myths are exposed for what they are, myths. There could not have been only 3 ethnic groups. If it was occurring in such a mythological age there wouldn't have been any noteworthy wars at least not in the sense the myths have portrayed them to be. They are myths invented to bestow a sense of honor for those that choose to identify with either Huang Yan or Chiyou. Chiyou is for those that place importance on great individual worth which contain concepts of being lone and out on the periphery. Huang and Yan are obviously symbols used for unity and strength in assembly. It depends on the ways a particular nationality views its self worth in terms of its historical past to make a connection to these myths. It doesn't mean that the myths themselves are literally true and that Huang Di actually invented a south pointing chariot...I could keep on going but you get the idea.

Edited by mohistManiac, 19 September 2011 - 04:24 AM.

[Tazfelis]

ok, i will first apologize and state that it is not my intention to make you look bad. from your statements about the y-dna reports and how you applied them, i could tell right away that you did not fully understand y-dna. i only wanted to make sure that was the case and the best way to do it was this test. i tried to make a way for you to save yourself by telling you that "if you don't like my choices, you can make your own."

the correct answer is neither. they are both wrong.

a man can only test positive for ONE y-dna haplogroup. his y-dna is 100% whatever haplogroup he tests positive for. there is no other haplogroup in his y-dna. y-dna reports are essentially a report to look at the make-up of a whole nation. it tells you what type and what percentage of individual y-dna haplogroups (ancestries) make up the identity of that nation.

Actually, the only reason I answer A is because the o3a3c is more. That is all. You think too much. By the way, if you are trying to prove a valid point by asking questions, then you are not doing a good job. I still don't understand what are you trying to tell me. Are you saying a person can only have single o3a3c while at the same time can not have other yhaplogroup like o2b? If that is the case, then you are most likely wrong because one person can have both o3 and o2b at the same time. Take a look at Korean YDNA for example.

Korean males display a high frequency of Haplogroup O2b* (P49), a subclade of possibly Manchurian origin, and O3 (M122), a common Y-DNA haplogroup among East Asians in general.^[19][20] Haplogroup O2b* occurs approximately 14%^[21][22][23] to 33%^[24] of all Korean males, while haplogroup O3 has been found in approximately 40% of sampled Korean males.

http://en.wikipedia....DNA_haplogroups

Each Korean males have 14%-33% of o2b. This means the other percentage are other consists of other yhaplogroups. A man can be test positive for more than yhaplogroups, so you are wrong, unless I misunderstood what you mean when you said 'a man can only test positive for ONE y-dna haplogroup.' If not, then you are the one who are wrong.

Either way, you still haven't refute my autosomal DNA and you still haven't prove why we should rely only on YDNA while ignoring the other entire DNA.

The first picture you have provided, Tazfelis, shows the broad gamut distribution of types in eastern Asian genetics. Obviously to the extent that these populations are isolated from one another you will get different genetic sampling results which vary from one another. However to the extent that these populations are also connected to one another you get the actual relations in the graph which approximate the degree of overlap and this would be from both assimilation and genetic branching.

Indeed, which is why Miao does not assimilate themselves into Han Chinese because Miao and Han Chinese so they do not isolate with each other as have always been living with each other, yet genetic show they DO NOT OVERLAP with each other.

Assimilation is the reason behind while there can exist different populations based on genetics it would still be ludicrous to assume a genetic basis as a conversion tool into determining what ethnicity someone is. For example going by the first half of the second picture you provide it seems that maybe some Tibetans are closely related to Singaporean Chinese. Perhaps they have migrated to Singapore coming from populations in China which have themselves either came from or experienced close ties amongst Tibetan groups. Either way, at least personally, I have never heard Singaporean Chinese rather identify with the Tibetan ethnicity. Also, notice Taiwanese in the second picture are shown both together with southern and northern Han in two different instances. Although you have not explained where you got these pictures from and their original intended purpose I can still say that it makes sense. Taiwan is just another place which facilitates the assimilation process and Taiwanese are likely related to both southern and northern Hans. As we already know, Hans are related to a whole bunch of things especially since we lump them in a general group of Han Chinese. However if you could explain where you got these from then perhaps it would be better to tell you exactly what it is you are looking at.

Erm..ok whatever interpretation you have, but we are suppose to be talking about Han Chinese-Miao/Hmong, not Tibetan,Taiwanese or SIngaporean Chinese. I got this picture in the other thread from SNK_1408. The purpose is to prove that how Miao/Hmong does not assimilate themselves into Han Chinese as proven by genetics because if they do assimilate, they will have share similar genetic and put under same category or at least categorized closely together like Taiwanese, Northern Han and Southern Han. Read carefully your own words, you said Taiwan are a place of process of assimilation and likely related to Northern Han and Southern Han right? This is because Taiwan are shown both together with Northern and Southern Han right? However, the same can not be applied to Miao/Hmong as they are NOT shown together with Northern Han and Southern Han Chinese which means they do not assimilate into Han Chinese. This is exactly what I was trying to tell you all along. This is what I mean when I said their genetic do not overlap or not categorized together.

Concerning myths, while you and I are more appreciative of scientific discoveries, they are not entirely and utterly worthless. In fact they are often times the crown jewels that distinguish one ethnicity from another. Many different groups identify with Chiyou and although one can hardly argue just how their distinctive cultures relate they are at least related in this simple way by the defining cultural legacy this myth carries. The situation is same for the different groups of Han Chinese which identify with Chiyou's counterparts, Huang and Yan. Perhaps they may have even once revered their own forms of "Chiyou" but became gradually coaxed into revering Huang and Yan nevertheless.

Er, thanks for sharing. The more I look at your post, the more I think you are more into myth/unsubstantiated "historical" accounts rather than science.

It bothers me none to noodle at this some more but you should realize that sometimes you just contradict yourself without the slightest hesitation. You talk about the myths and incorporate them into your explanations as well or did you not say that if Chiyou's tribes assimilated into Huang and Yan's tribes then those peoples could hardly be considered the same Miao Hmong today? Here's what you said:

NO!! You misunderstood what I mean again! I was trying to prove that the myth Miao assimilate themselves into Han Chinese wrong by using science.In other words, SCIENCE VS MYTH. Of course, by doing this, I will have to discard the fact that they are all myth. The thing is, you keep saying Miao/Hmong assimilate into Han Chinese, but you never provide any scientific evidence to support your point. You keep saying you believe in science, I use scientific evidence such as the autosomal DNA to prove that Miao/Hmong does not assimilate, but you still saying they does. You talk about YDNA, telling me what is their purpose but you never try to use it and relate with Miao/Hmong assimilation into Han Chinese.Recently, you interpret the images that I provided, but again, you never try to prove to me scientifically how you come to conclusion Miao/Hmong assimilate into Han Chinese. Instead, you talk about Taiwan,Northern Han and Southern Han which I agree with you and this time, as you can see above, I use your own northern Han-southern Han-Taiwan interpretation to explain. That is why I feel you are buying into myth/ unsubstantiated "historical" accounts entirely. Which side are you on? Science or myth? Pick your choice. I definitely pick science.

It certainly sounded as though you were trying to say something about Huang and Yan belonging to Han and Chiyou belonging to non Han. My contention on the issue of Han Chinese is that it likely incorporated peoples that would have no trouble identifying with a Chiyou type figure. After all is said however the myths are exposed for what they are, myths. There could not have been only 3 ethnic groups. If it was occurring in such a mythological age there wouldn't have been any noteworthy wars at least not in the sense the myths have portrayed them to be. They are myths invented to bestow a sense of honor for those that choose to identify with either Huang Yan or Chiyou. Chiyou is for those that place importance on great individual worth which contain concepts of being lone and out on the periphery. Huang and Yan are obviously symbols used for unity and strength in assembly. It depends on the ways a particular nationality views its self worth in terms of its historical past to make a connection to these myths. It doesn't mean that the myths themselves are literally true and that Huang Di actually invented a south pointing chariot...I could keep on going but you get the idea.

Yeah, I get the point here but scientifically, there still haven't prove that Miao/Hmong assimilate into Han Chinese consider that genetically speaking, Miao/Hmong being southeast asian origin are more likely than northern China/central plain origin.

Edited by Tazfelis, 22 September 2011 - 05:58 AM.

[mohistManiac]

Indeed, which is why Miao does not assimilate themselves into Han Chinese because Miao and Han Chinese so they do not isolate with each other as have always been living with each other, yet genetic show they DO NOT OVERLAP with each other.

Look at it this way. A person who lives on the top floor of a building is going to have less frequent contact with people living on the lesser floors. Miao folk in China live scattered in rural areas with higher elevation and there is no possible way to engage in contact with them on frequent basis. Yet how do you explain the fact that there are actually more mixed heritage Miao, in broad genetic terms, living within the ranks of Han Chinese? I've already stated earlier that the figure itself is comprehensible in terms of a country and accounts for more than the actual population of Miao for the world in total. It means a large segment of their population have already assimilated to the Han ethnic group but the remaining ethnic Miao in China have remained obscured to this day. This would definitely limit the rates of assimilation to their populations in return. And since both would need to be about the same in composition, again in broad genetic terms, to merit correlation on the graph most of the times there won't be a correlation the way you'd expect. Most ethnic Miao are thus overlapped with Han Chinese in this manner because it is a one sided overlap but with more than half of Miao being assimilated towards the Han Chinese. It's totally different from your position of thinking they don't relate nor assimilate simply because their genetic compositions are non identical. The Han Chinese may possibly have all the genomic types found within Miao populations but Miao populations themselves may have far fewer selections of those coming from those Han Chinese settlements nearby. Furthermore these settlements may have begun by being relatively isolated and specialized themselves.

Erm..ok whatever interpretation you have, but we are suppose to be talking about Han Chinese-Miao/Hmong, not Tibetan,Taiwanese or SIngaporean Chinese. I got this picture in the other thread from SNK_1408. The purpose is to prove that how Miao/Hmong does not assimilate themselves into Han Chinese as proven by genetics because if they do assimilate, they will have share similar genetic and put under same category or at least categorized closely together like Taiwanese, Northern Han and Southern Han. Read carefully your own words, you said Taiwan are a place of process of assimilation and likely related to Northern Han and Southern Han right? This is because Taiwan are shown both together with Northern and Southern Han right? However, the same can not be applied to Miao/Hmong as they are NOT shown together with Northern Han and Southern Han Chinese which means they do not assimilate into Han Chinese. This is exactly what I was trying to tell you all along. This is what I mean when I said their genetic do not overlap or not categorized together.

I am simply telling you what I was fairly certain you'd first fail to understanding from a graph you yourself provided. A population like Han Chinese is going to contain everything from north south and all other directions on the Han Chinese watch dial, even Tibetan. Taiwan's main population is also derived from Han Chinese but its process of assimilation for Han coming from north and south is in a heightened mode of response. It's so much more comparatively smaller than China that it could only fit a reduced population coming anywhere from China which have no choice but to assimilate with one another.

Er, thanks for sharing. The more I look at your post, the more I think you are more into myth/unsubstantiated "historical" accounts rather than science.

I would like to know just how you are able to accumulate all that nonsense from me saying that myths in the end are myths. If memory serves, you are the one that was choking up about how the Chinese myths don't correlate exactly with genetic research. While you may not agree I simply don't have a problem with their being useful for their own particular form and function which includes for the most part helping to establish an ethnic identity even while they aren't true to begin with.

NO!! You misunderstood what I mean again! I was trying to prove that the myth Miao assimilate themselves into Han Chinese wrong by using science.In other words, SCIENCE VS MYTH. Of course, by doing this, I will have to discard the fact that they are all myth. The thing is, you keep saying Miao/Hmong assimilate into Han Chinese, but you never provide any scientific evidence to support your point. You keep saying you believe in science, I use scientific evidence such as the autosomal DNA to prove that Miao/Hmong does not assimilate, but you still saying they does. You talk about YDNA, telling me what is their purpose but you never try to use it and relate with Miao/Hmong assimilation into Han Chinese.Recently, you interpret the images that I provided, but again, you never try to prove to me scientifically how you come to conclusion Miao/Hmong assimilate into Han Chinese. Instead, you talk about Taiwan,Northern Han and Southern Han which I agree with you and this time, as you can see above, I use your own northern Han-southern Han-Taiwan interpretation to explain. That is why I feel you are buying into myth/ unsubstantiated "historical" accounts entirely. Which side are you on? Science or myth? Pick your choice. I definitely pick science.

The difficulty for you is that you hardly take notice that ethnicity is for the most part self defined. Whether or not a myth stands to persist in its every claim is hardly the point. You are seriously confusing yourself about what your graphs are showing if you try to deny that assimilation went on simply because two populations have not yet totally merged to become one and identical throughout. There is simply no matter worth considering when saying a myth is false simply to demerit the right to identity in the claims an ethnicity makes itself for its own consumption. Although one could always say that myths are false their particular form and function remains.

You don't have to prove myths anything because they are myths. The only thing objective thing about them is from extrapolating. In talking about Huang Yan and Chiyou I was showing how even someone thousands of miles away may have for his culture an identical reverence for the same deity as another person's culture elsewhere. We can go on to explain that it is because both have somehow been involved in learning the same mythological worldview and have chosen to identify with some aspect of it. Assessing a myth may inform us of the ethnic quality of some place or other which is rather more determinant of any person's ethnicty than what his DNA markers end up showing through a lab analysis.

Yeah, I get the point here but scientifically, there still haven't prove that Miao/Hmong assimilate into Han Chinese consider that genetically speaking, Miao/Hmong being southeast asian origin are more likely than northern China/central plain origin.

That depends on the location Miao/Hmong become resident in throughout history. Obviously on foot a segment of Miao/Hmong residing in southeast asia is not going to assimilate with plains people but any Miao/Hmong living in China with other plains during ancient times would have found plenty time to assimilate. They need only to say that they were Miao/Hmong by the time they got fully assimilated into the population.

[Tazfelis]

Look at it this way. A person who lives on the top floor of a building is going to have less frequent contact with people living on the lesser floors. Miao folk in China live scattered in rural areas with higher elevation and there is no possible way to engage in contact with them on frequent basis. Yet how do you explain the fact that there are actually more mixed heritage Miao, in broad genetic terms, living within the ranks of Han Chinese? I've already stated earlier that the figure itself is comprehensible in terms of a country and accounts for more than the actual population of Miao for the world in total. It means a large segment of their population have already assimilated to the Han ethnic group but the remaining ethnic Miao in China have remained obscured to this day. This would definitely limit the rates of assimilation to their populations in return. And since both would need to be about the same in composition, again in broad genetic terms, to merit correlation on the graph most of the times there won't be a correlation the way you'd expect. Most ethnic Miao are thus overlapped with Han Chinese in this manner because it is a one sided overlap but with more than half of Miao being assimilated towards the Han Chinese. It's totally different from your position of thinking they don't relate nor assimilate simply because their genetic compositions are non identical. The Han Chinese may possibly have all the genomic types found within Miao populations but Miao populations themselves may have far fewer selections of those coming from those Han Chinese settlements nearby. Furthermore these settlements may have begun by being relatively isolated and specialized themselves.

If you are talking about the 2% mixed heritage, then I already admit only small minority of Han Chinese perhaps got Miao/Hmong ancestry. Beside, you are talking about Miao who engage in interracial marriage right? Secondly, you are trying to tell me the Miao living in rural area coincidentally do not have the same genetic make up as Han Chinese while Miao who have similar genetic as Han Chinese coincidentally assimilate into Han Chinese? If you are saying Miao does assimilate through interracial marriage, then I can agree with that as it's been proven that during Ming dynasty, many Han Chinese soldiers marry Miao women. I just want to remind you that when I said 'I do not think Miao assimilate into Han Chinese', I am talking about the one who culturally assimilate without marriage with Han Chinese. This is why I said their genetic does not overlap as proven by genetics.

I am simply telling you what I was fairly certain you'd first fail to understanding from a graph you yourself provided. A population like Han Chinese is going to contain everything from north south and all other directions on the Han Chinese watch dial, even Tibetan. Taiwan's main population is also derived from Han Chinese but its process of assimilation for Han coming from north and south is in a heightened mode of response. It's so much more comparatively smaller than China that it could only fit a reduced population coming anywhere from China which have no choice but to assimilate with one another.

No, you are the one who don't understand.Your logic can also be used against your Miao/Hmong assimilation theory. You use Tibet and Taiwan, but not Miao/Hmong. Why is that? It because you can't since they are genetically too far away that it's very unlikely for them to assimilate themselves without involving marriage.

The difficulty for you is that you hardly take notice that ethnicity is for the most part self defined. Whether or not a myth stands to persist in its every claim is hardly the point. You are seriously confusing yourself about what your graphs are showing if you try to deny that assimilation went on simply because two populations have not yet totally merged to become one and identical throughout. There is simply no matter worth considering when saying a myth is false simply to demerit the right to identity in the claims an ethnicity makes itself for its own consumption. Although one could always say that myths are false their particular form and function remains.

You don't have to prove myths anything because they are myths. The only thing objective thing about them is from extrapolating. In talking about Huang Yan and Chiyou I was showing how even someone thousands of miles away may have for his culture an identical reverence for the same deity as another person's culture elsewhere. We can go on to explain that it is because both have somehow been involved in learning the same mythological worldview and have chosen to identify with some aspect of it. Assessing a myth may inform us of the ethnic quality of some place or other which is rather more determinant of any person's ethnicty than what his DNA markers end up showing through a lab analysis.

That's right, ethnicity is self defined. However, no individual that identify himself/herself as Miao/Hmong have similar genetic as Han Chinese, unless you are saying Miao/Hmong who genetically Han Chinese coincidentally assimilate into Han Chinese while the one genetically different maintain his Miao/Hmong. You need to explain how does this ridiculous coincidence happen first because there is no way they can figure out how their genetic look like without genetic test.Remember, I'm talking about the one who assimilate culturally without involving interracial marriage. You just indirectly admit it yourself you are into myth/unsubstantiated "historical" accounts rather than science. If you are really into science, then you would have put aside all this myth and ignore the culture similarity as well. For example, there are a lot of culture similarity between Han Chinese and Japan, does this mean ancient Japan and Han Chinese are the same ethnic? No. Can a white guy be considered asian just because he decided to' self define' himself as asian? No.

For the second paragraph, are you trying to tell me that Miao/Hmong are not originated same place as Chi You, which means Miao/Hmong are not Jiuli/Dong Yi, yet they share similar culture as Chi You due to Chi You's reputation and influence to the point it reach southern China? If that is the case, I can accept that theory of yours.

That depends on the location Miao/Hmong become resident in throughout history. Obviously on foot a segment of Miao/Hmong residing in southeast asia is not going to assimilate with plains people but any Miao/Hmong living in China with other plains during ancient times would have found plenty time to assimilate. They need only to say that they were Miao/Hmong by the time they got fully assimilated into the population.

Not really, as far as I'm concern, most autosomal DNA on individuals that identify Miao/Hmong have always show more or less similar DNA results. Miao/Hmong are quite homogeneous at least from autosomal perspective.Besides, the one in southern China are not that far away from southeast asia, so I won't surprise if the Miao/Hmong in China also have majority of their DNA contributed from southeast asian. Base on the genetic evidence, we can say in term of percentage, there are a lot of southeast asian assimilate themselves into Miao/Hmong, probably more than Miao/Hmong assimilate into Han Chinese.

Edited by Tazfelis, 19 September 2011 - 11:57 PM.

[mohistManiac]

If you are talking about the 2% mixed heritage, then I already admit only small minority of Han Chinese perhaps got Miao/Hmong ancestry. Beside, you are talking about Miao who engage in interracial marriage right? Secondly, you are trying to tell me the Miao living in rural area coincidentally do not have the same genetic make up as Han Chinese while Miao who have similar genetic as Han Chinese coincidentally assimilate into Han Chinese? If you are saying Miao does assimilate through interracial marriage, then can agree with that as it's been proven that during Ming dynasty, many Han Chinese soldiers marry Miao women. I just want to remind you that when I said do not think Miao assimilate into Han Chinese, I am talking about the one who culturally assimilate without marriage with Han Chinese. This explain why they genetically does not overlap.

Now you're not making any sort of sense. If we are not talking about Han Chinese that migrate uphill into Miao territory only to end up having a 2 week vacation exploring caves and waterfalls and then come back with great knowledge of the world about them why would you talk about Miao that take a downstairs hike only to come back up again? Of course we are talking intermarriage. Obviously if you are willing to include 2 percent YDNA identified Miao (or any percentage for that matter) into the blend of Han Chinese it is because you acknowledge the even wider distribution of those different genetic types which have long been handled by various domains containing Miao. The Miao can be characterized for their overlap into the Han Chinese because out of all available Miao in China, mixed heritage or otherwise, they produce over half of their numbers within the Han Chinese and most Miao are already in China or else I wouldn't even be bringing this up. However Han Chinese produce less than a percentage point of all their available people within Miao domains. There is overlap, its just not identical overlap.

No, you are the one who don't understand.Your logic can also be used against your Miao/Hmong theory.

There's no logic against another theory here it's the same basic set up everywhere. Every place will contain different peoples but some places are simply more prone to become areas of assimilation. There is no trick going on here unless you are confusing yourself yet again.

That's right, ethnicity is self defined. However, no individual that identify himself/herself as Miao/Hmong have similar genetic as Han Chinese, unless you are saying Miao/Hmong who genetically Han Chinese coincidentally assimilate into Han Chinese while the one genetically different maintain his Miao/Hmong. You need to explain this ridiculous coincidence first.Remember, I'm talking about the one who assimilate culturally without involving interracial marriage.

For the second paragraph, are you trying to tell me that Miao/Hmong are not originated same place as Chi You, which means Miao/Hmong are not Jiuli/Dong Yi, yet they share similar culture as Chi You due to Chi You's reputation? If that is the case, I can accept that theory of yours.

Then you are simply denying that ethnicity is self defined by saying that no individual that identify with being Miao have similar genetic as Han Chinese.

For the second paragraph I said nothing of the sort because as I've said, myths are not real. I simply stated that anyone using the myth of Chi You informs us of the ethnic character that becomes of their group. Chi You may contain real qualities found in real people but ultimately he had special powers and his actions against other special beings warrants only his function within the myths as a form of motif or symbolic significance. You are running into another dead end wall of confusion if you think Chi You was partially responsible for own culture and that this culture must have thus originated out of some commonly recognized place.

Not really, as far as I'm concern, most autosomal DNA on individuals that identify Miao/Hmong have always show more or less similar DNA results. Besides, the one in southern China are not that far away from southeast asia, so I won't surprise if the Miao/Hmong in China also have majority of their DNA contributed from southeast asian.

They might really have originated from southeast asia so obviously nobody is surprised. The fact that most Miao Hmong are in China and most have assimilated supports just exactly what I have been trying to say about the possibility of areas where people land after migration trips and to whom they could possibly assimilate with.

[Tazfelis]

Now you're not making any sort of sense. If we are not talking about Han Chinese that migrate uphill into Miao territory only to end up having a 2 week vacation exploring caves and waterfalls and then come back with great knowledge of the world about them why would you talk about Miao that take a downstairs hike only to come back up again? Of course we are talking intermarriage. Obviously if you are willing to include 2 percent YDNA identified Miao (or any percentage for that matter) into the blend of Han Chinese it is because you acknowledge the even wider distribution of those different genetic types which have long been handled by various domains containing Miao. The Miao can be characterized for their overlap into the Han Chinese because out of all available Miao in China, mixed heritage or otherwise, they produce over half of their numbers within the Han Chinese and most Miao are already in China or else I wouldn't even be bringing this up. However Han Chinese produce less than a percentage point of all their available people within Miao domains. There is overlap, its just not identical overlap.

Since you are talking about Miao that assimilate through interracial marriage, then I will not argue with you on that. However, if you talk about assimilation without involving interracial marriage, I will have to strongly disagree with that because genetic clearly shows the Miao/Hmong today, who retain their identity does not have similar genetic as Han Chinese because if Miao/Hmong assimilate without involving interracial marriage, they would have retain their genetic as those Miao/Hmong from rural area. This mean Miao/Hmong assimilate into Han Chinese without involving interracial marriage are very unlikely.

There's no logic against another theory here it's the same basic set up everywhere. Every place will contain different peoples but some places are simply more prone to become areas of assimilation. There is no trick going on here unless you are confusing yourself yet again.

No, there are. The fact that the genetic research shows Han Chinese are genetically far away from Miao/Hmong and you yourself fail to prove Miao/Hmong assimilate into Han Chinese using similar images is a good proof. Read the below quote again.

You use Tibet and Taiwan, but not Miao/Hmong. Why is that? It because you can't since they are genetically too far away that it's very unlikely for them to assimilate themselves without involving marriage.

But then again, you are talking about Miao/Hmong that assimilate through interracial marriage, not the one who assimilate without interracial marriage.

Then you are simply denying that ethnicity is self defined by saying that no individual that identify with being Miao have similar genetic as Han Chinese.

For the second paragraph I said nothing of the sort because as I've said, myths are not real. I simply stated that anyone using the myth of Chi You informs us of the ethnic character that becomes of their group. Chi You may contain real qualities found in real people but ultimately he had special powers and his actions against other special beings warrants only his function within the myths as a form of motif or symbolic significance. You are running into another dead end wall of confusion if you think Chi You was partially responsible for own culture and that this culture must have thus originated out of some commonly recognized place.

Because that is the fact. So far, NO individual that identify himself/herself as Miao/Hmong share similar genetics as Han Chinese. So there is no point talking about something that never happen. Besides, if you want to enter a new ethnic, you have to sacrifice your other culture and go practice the culture of the ethnic you want to join, but if everyone does that, the meaning of ethnic will be downgraded as everyone can simply switch ethnic here and there. Therefore, in my opinion, in today modern day, your ethnic are determined by your parents, who have been practicing their cultures pass down through generations.

They might really have originated from southeast asia so obviously nobody is surprised. The fact that most Miao Hmong are in China and most have assimilated supports just exactly what I have been trying to say about the possibility of areas where people land after migration trips and to whom they could possibly assimilate with.

Good to see we finally come to an agreement after such a long debate. Just like you, I also think Miao/Hmong came from southeast asia, not northern China/central plain/yellow river. Miao/Hmong came from southeast asia is a theory that can been clarified and supported by genetic research that I posted in this thread.

Edited by Tazfelis, 20 September 2011 - 08:39 AM.

[mohistManiac]

Since you are talking about Miao that assimilate through interracial marriage, then I will not argue with you on that. However, if you talk about assimilation without involving interracial marriage, I will have to strongly disagree with that because genetic clearly shows the Miao/Hmong today, who retain their identity does not have similar genetic as Han Chinese because if Miao/Hmong assimilate without involving interracial marriage, they would have retain their genetic as those Miao/Hmong from rural area. This mean Miao/Hmong assimilate into Han Chinese without involving interracial marriage are very unlikely.

Even if I was talking about assimilation without involving interracial marriage I would have to conclude that there were some events which led up to it. Miao/Hmong would therefore assimilate first on the basis of getting to know the people of other cultures of the region with which they are going to be facing on a permanent basis. Marriage of cultures, not genetics, at their points of contact would definitely occur. When a new identity emerges from the unification as had occured numerous times in the history of China it would mean countless people would still retain their unique genetic profiles but would be assigned the new identity of their own broader based community. It is original ethnic distinctions such as these which become lost to time as new ones form out of assimilative processes.

No, there are. The fact that the genetic research shows Han Chinese are genetically far away from Miao/Hmong and you yourself fail to prove Miao/Hmong assimilate into Han Chinese using similar images is a good proof. Read the below quote again.

Depends on which Han Chinese. The more extensively you are a component byproduct of many many peoples the more you would come to be characterized as being distinctive altogether. You would become far different than the original groups of people you've come to learn were your ancestors. However this doesn't mean you do not overlap with your ancestors, just some more than others. And yet, there you would be, different even in ways of self-defined ethnity no forefather could have imagined.

But then again, you are talking about Miao/Hmong that assimilate through interracial marriage, not the one who assimilate without interracial marriage.

Yes, but you realize why I talked about Tibet? It was shown on the graph alongside Singaporean Chinese which makes them genetically similar yet ethnically dissimilar. Call it a racial divorce or what have you. Ethniciy is not determined by genetics even when so cleverly presented on a graph such as the ones your provide. People can migrate and assimilate at will which is what I've been trying to clarify for you.

Because that is the fact. So far, NO individual that identify himself/herself as Miao/Hmong share similar genetics as Han Chinese. So there is no point talking about something that never happen. Besides, if you want to enter a new ethnic, you have to sacrifice your other culture and go practice the culture of the ethnic you want to join, but if everyone does that, the meaning of ethnic will be downgraded as everyone can simply switch ethnic here and there. Therefore, in my opinion, in today modern day, your ethnic are determined by your parents, who have been practicing their cultures pass down through generations.

Whatever you say, it seems to be only working on yourself.

Good to see we finally come to an agreement after such a long debate. Just like you, I also think Miao/Hmong came from southeast asia, not northern China/central plain/yellow river. Miao/Hmong came from southeast asia is a theory that can been clarified and supported by genetic research that I posted in this thread.

You are very welcome. If there's anything else please don't hesitate to ask.

[Tazfelis]

Yes, but you realize why I talked about Tibet? It was shown on the graph alongside Singaporean Chinese which makes them genetically similar yet ethnically dissimilar. Call it a racial divorce or what have you. Ethniciy is not determined by genetics even when so cleverly presented on a graph such as the ones your provide. People can migrate and assimilate at will which is what I've been trying to clarify for you.

Yeah, but previously when you said....

Perhaps they have migrated to Singapore coming from populations in China which have themselves either came from or experienced close ties amongst Tibetan groups.

I thought you are referring to Tibetan assimilate themselves within Han Chinese, something that I can agree on more than Miao/Hmong assimilation into Han Chinese since Tibetan genetically closer to Han Chinese more than Miao/Hmong.

Edited by Tazfelis, 21 September 2011 - 08:15 AM.

[Eidolon]

Hmong (Miao) populations in China are actually quite close, genetically, to Han Chinese in the same region.

Oh, and stop using Korean nationalists/racists (such as those on Korean Sentry) for your opinions. They're like white nationalists/racists on Stormfront, and their preconceived biases are negatively affecting your understanding.

Edited by Eidolon, 22 September 2011 - 02:10 PM.

[Tazfelis]

Hmong (Miao) populations in China are actually quite close, genetically, to Han Chinese in the same region.

You mean the Han Chinese living in the same provinces as Miao/Hmong? That possible, although I never seen any autosomal DNA that truly shows Han Chinese are genetically close to Miao/Hmong.

Oh, and stop using Korean nationalists/racists (such as those on Korean Sentry) for your opinions. They're like white nationalists/racists on Stormfront, and their preconceived biases are negatively affecting your understanding.

[Eidolon]

You mean the Han Chinese living in the same provinces as Miao/Hmong? That possible, although I never seen any autosomal DNA that truly shows Han Chinese are genetically close to Miao/Hmong.

Li, JZ. 2009 et. al., "Worldwide Human Relationships Inferred from Genome-Wide Patterns of Variation" is a good place to start.