Modern Europeans, including Germans and Slavs, are not natives of Europe either, they are mostly all from Asia, the migration occurred less than 3000 years ago. What is your point other than for being an a***? You can't deny that the Shanghainese population and culture stems from its immediate neighboring regions (Jiangsu and Zhejiang). The Lower Yangtze region (Wuyue/Gouet 吴越) has had a distinct culture and lifestyle for two millennia. The Wu dialects were recorded as being different from that spoken in the Central Plains 2000 years ago. True, there were later migrations from the north, but the core cultural essence of the region has remained to this day. To downplay this regionalism with "they all came from all over China anyway" is typical "Greater Han 大汉主义" arrogance.



Shanghai was a part of southern Jiangsu province until 1949. And in conventional belief is part of "Wu" culture not the Yue in Zhejiang. Afterall, Shanghai is actually a bit north of Suzhou (in southern Jiangsu, the representative of Wu). Today Shanghai is still a cross between Wu and Yue, its dialect also reveals this (for example We "ala" and You "non" are Yue terms while its phonology is more similar to that of southern Jiangsu). Since the Han period, Wu and Yue have pretty much an identical culture, more similar with each other than with any other group. Northern Jiangsu and Fujian are like foreign countries to us.

One question: are the Subei 苏北 (northern Jiangsu) people in Shanghai, who are looked down upon by native Shanghainese, genetically different in any way?

okay, lets first make something very clear. modern european populations are a result of upper paleolithic inhabitants that resembled middle easterners and lower paleolithic western siberian population that migrated into europe around 10,000 years ago. there was no concept of "asia" or "europe" at the time so to claim Europeans are of "asian" descent is false

You have a source for that?

You've got to be kidding me, where have I "claimed" Europeans are of "Asian descent"? But that they migrated from what is today the Asian continent is undeniable. It matters little or not if there was a concept of Asia or Europe back then, my point was that migrations happen everywhere, and the fact a people migrated from one place does not mean they are necessary related to the current inhabitants of that place. You must like arguing for the sake of arguing; but try to grasp the point of my example first, then you'll realize the comments you made above agrees with me.

Very interesting arguments for the rest of us who know little about prehistoric population movements. But do cool down, both of you, and avoid being defensive.

the upper paleolithic populations of Europe did not migrate from "Asia", it was only the MUCH later lower neolithic Cro-magnon which was from Western Siberia which migrated into Europe and altered the population less than 15,000-10,000 years ago.

The points we made were not the same

During the upper paleolithic most of Europe were consisted of Cro-magnon man. The population never took off as Agriculture hasn't been introduced yet. The second migration were the much later Indo-europeans from south west asia during the neolithic. The migration took place from 5000BC to 1800BC. The latter migration chracaterises modern European genetically, so logically speaking Europeans do originate from the continent of Asia.

"indo european" is a language, if you are referring non-Cro-Magnon types, then refer to them as the " dolichocephalic modern caucasoid".

dolichocephalic types have existed in Europe since the upper paleolithic

please define "genetically european". Europeans are a combination of upper paleolithic and lower paleolithic populations and are quite diverse.

The concept of the dividing races along the lines of Australoid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid is inappropriate because of the lack of genetic evidence to back up the division. The Negrito were one of the first groups of people to arrive in Asia from Africa. Subsequently the Negrito are as genetically different from African from the human cradle as any peoples in Asia.

race is not written in stone yet but its hardly "inappropriate" nor does it have "racist" implications. Humans left africa 50,000 to 80,000 years ago. the old "if we go back far enough, we're all related"
sounds like liberal propoganda.please state your sources. Anthropologists who carefully the study the subject both from a craniometric point of view and genetic point of view are NOT racists.

though not perfect, genetic studies can trace migrational patterns of negritos, australoids and veddic types such as the coastal route that M217 and Yap lineages took, genetics are specific enough to trace migration patterns, if people on earth are impossible to seperate genetically, then it would be impossible to trace such as specific lineage

the negrito like i already stated is not fully Negroid, i already mentioned this.

a good quote from George W. Gill

"Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous. In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes racism. Therefore, they have pushed the politically correct agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the evidence."

These groupings were developed during the 19th century prior to the development of modern genetics. These groupings primarily take into account visual aspect of person using the assumption that these visual traits identify a person race. As you may know the Negrito population were proven to have significant genetic variance with Africans.

genetic variation does not equal "race does not exist". genetic variation implies migration patterns and mixing of different groups.

"Australoid" was not used during the 19th century, they were either grouped with negroids or mongoloids.

i already mentioned your last sentence twice which is why i said negritos are not real negroids. please stop repeating what i said and you said.

these terms are still used today. all variations are labelled as in betweens of different races IE cro-magnon having skulls similar to archaic africans but not being actual "negroids"

in high school, they tell you that any concept of "race" is inherently racist but its clear most anthropologists still use "race" to label different skulls they find. They're are genetic differences as well as craniometric and phenotypical differences. Doesn't mean one is better than the other.

In the Upper Paleolithic, when moderns first set foot into Europe, people AFAIK entered Europe from three directions, from norther Africa into Iberia (Spain), from the Middle East into southeastern Europe, and from western Siberia into Eastern Europe.
They were not the same type. AFAIK, all of them except the western Siberian type (Cro-Magnon) resembled Australian Aborigines. This is the consensus of anthropologists AFAIK. The Cro-Magnon type have broad heads, and some had tall noses while others had short ones, like modern East Eurasians and Native Americans. One anthropologist even went to say that they resembled Mongolians.
Even today, about half of Europe are either descended from M45 or M214 on the male side, which makes them in a way more related to Asians than they are to Middle Easterners and other Europeans (especially southern ones).

The irony is that the epitome of Whiteness (people with blond hair, blue eyes and square broad heads) are at their highest percentage in the Baltic areas, such as Finnland, where their lineage is more related to Chinese than to Middle Easterners, and even their language, Uralic, is related to eastern languages.

Modern Caucasians is thoroughly a modern concept, out of the blending of various strains. Anthropologists can't even find people of that type or close to it when they go back to 15 or 20 thousand years ago, let alone in the Upper Paleolithic.

Food for thought in this new age of new fossil finds, new ways of thinking, and genetics.

P.S. Those people in this thread who say race doesn't exist, I just wonder sometimes if they are just regurgitating something they read from a news mag by some journalist regurgitating what she got from a scientist regurgitating what he prepared to say to stay PC and to not lead people to rash conclusions.

You look at a black man and a white man and they are different. Thus, races exist. Simple as that.

I know genetics, and even in that field, race exists, just not in the way people think. So, many scientists choose to not give the average Joe a loaded weapon because ignorant people with complicated ideas are dangerous. Look at Hitler. His head was baked from the beginning. But race does exist. Actually, it depends on how you define it. Visit my site in my sig to get an understanding of it. Read the post "Fairy Tales About Race" in the Come Here First section.

Rudeboy,

Nice anthropology forum you've got..

Thanx. I'm trying to keep it as professional as possible. Anthropology is a field where it is easy to get entangled in people's political views, so you really have to be careful.

It is possible that our own ancestors, the Huaxia people, also came from central or even western Asia and colonised what is now the Wei and Yellow River valleys, which were originally inhabited by non-Chinese aborigines.

See for example:

http://www.threekingdoms.com/history.htm#1

"The inhabitants of China are known to the world as Chinese. They speak of themselves as the "people of Han." As Han is name of a dynasty, it hardly denote the origin of the people. Many theories, based more or less upon religious myths, have been advanced to show whence the first inhabitants of China came; but their correctness must necessarily await further scientific discoveries. All accounts, however, agree that the basin of the Yellow River was the cradle of the Chinese culture, and that their ancestors were a nomadic people who, some five or six thousand years ago, migrated from the north-western part of Asia and finally settled in the northern-central part of what is now China. "

Are the Caucasus mountain range considered part of Europe or part of Asia?