Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Han Race - is it as pure as we think?


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 KingLee99

KingLee99

    County Magistrate (Xianling 县令)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 8 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    History, art of war, culture

Posted 24 February 2010 - 05:34 PM

Hey guys there's some research that I thought I'd share with all of you. Enjoy.

Part 2 of Origins of the Chinese

http://generaldimsum.blogspot.com/

"In time, the larger population of the ethnic Han would dilute these physical differences to render them invisible. Genetics however still show that the of contemporary Chinese, those from the North show greater genetic similarities to the Mongolians, Koreans and other Central Asian groups than to Southern Chinese groups. Southern Chinese groups share more genetic similarities to Southeast Asian ethnic groups than to Northern Chinese."


#2 mrclub

mrclub

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • Supreme Scholar (Jinshi)
  • 2,709 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Singapore
  • Interests:Chinese Language/Dialects, history on China, Chinese Culture
  • Languages spoken:English, Mandarin, Singapore Teochew
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:Han Chinese (Teochew People)
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Language
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Forummer

Posted 24 February 2010 - 07:34 PM

I thought long time ago, it is proven that Han Chinese isn't purely Han Chinese anymore ???

Me, for example, I am not pure. Generations ago, an ethnic minority female entered our family.
Shantou Skyline (汕头市的天际线)
Posted Image

#3 qrasy

qrasy

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • CHF Han Lin Scholar
  • 4,743 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Physics, Chemistry, Maths, Biology, Languages, Ethnicity, History, etc.
  • Languages spoken:Mandarin Chinese, Indonesian, English, Cantonese
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:Han Chinese (Southeastern)
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Other Interests
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese Linguistics

Posted 24 February 2010 - 10:37 PM

It's hard to imagine that it's "pure", anyway.
As people from further North conquered the Northern part of the Jin (晉) state, the state was forced to relocate its center to a place that previously belonged to more Southerly peoples. Many "non-Han" people (the classification by outsiders at around that time) also came to the conquered areas.
(As long as the ancient "more Southerly" and "more Northerly" peoples are distinguishable, it's not surprising if the present-day results are distinguishable.)
 
Not sure, though, what the article is claiming by "Qiang replaced Xiongnu".

I thought long time ago, it is proven that Han Chinese isn't purely Han Chinese anymore ???

Me, for example, I am not pure. Generations ago, an ethnic minority female entered our family.

How did you know if the female was an ethnic minority, though?
And then, male lines also have a small percentage of (supposedly) ethnic minorities.

Edited by qrasy, 24 February 2010 - 10:39 PM.

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the liedeliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - JFK

One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas. - Neil deGrasse Tyson

#4 General_Zhaoyun

General_Zhaoyun

    Grand Valiant General of Imperial Han Army

  • Owner
  • 12,284 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Singapore (Taiwanese/Singapore Permanent Resident)
  • Interests:Chinese History, Chinese Philosophy and Religion, Chinese languages, Minnan/Taiwanese language, Classical Chinese, General Chinese Culture
  • Languages spoken:Mandarin, Taiwanese (Hokkien), English, German, Singlish
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:Han Chinese (Taiwanese Hoklo)
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    General Chinese Culture
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese Language, History and Culture

Posted 24 February 2010 - 11:07 PM

Hey guys there's some research that I thought I'd share with all of you. Enjoy.

Part 2 of Origins of the Chinese

http://generaldimsum.blogspot.com/

"In time, the larger population of the ethnic Han would dilute these physical differences to render them invisible. Genetics however still show that the of contemporary Chinese, those from the North show greater genetic similarities to the Mongolians, Koreans and other Central Asian groups than to Southern Chinese groups. Southern Chinese groups share more genetic similarities to Southeast Asian ethnic groups than to Northern Chinese."


There is no such thing as "pure Han-Chinese". "Han-Chinese" was just the name given to a group of people who speak and use a family of han-based languages descended from ancient China, and who also adopted han-culture. It's actually referring to Chinese who uses Hanzi as their written form and language.

But racially, "Han-Chinese" are actually mixed. If you've been to China, you will notice a facial and structural difference between northern Chinese and southern Chinese.

The racial mixture was due largely due countless of war from northern nomadic tribes such as Xiongnu, Xianbei, Turks, Khitan, Tanguts etc who originated from Mongolia, and then invaded and occupied China throughout Chinese history.
The bulk of racial mixing and division between north and south took place during age of fragmentation, when northern China became ruled by 16 different states who are of northern nomadic origin. During northern dynasty period of northern Wei, many of these northern nomadic tribes had been sinicized and intermingled with local han-Chinese to form the northern Chinese who know today. It was deliberate policy of Xianpi tribes to sinicize themselves to become Han-Chinese.

The central plain Han-Chinese was forced to flee southwards due to war and invasion during age of fragmentation. They settled down in southern China region such as Fujian, Guangdong etc. and intermingled with the local Yue population to form the southern han-Chinese that we know today.
Posted ImagePosted Image

"夫君子之行:靜以修身,儉以養德;非淡泊無以明志,非寧靜無以致遠。" - 諸葛亮

One should seek serenity to cultivate the body, thriftiness to cultivate the morals. If you are not simple and frugal, your ambition will not sparkle. If you are not calm and cool, you will not reach far. - Zhugeliang

#5 mohistManiac

mohistManiac

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 3,576 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Mythology
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 25 February 2010 - 09:16 AM

What KingLee99 pointed out was that Han's cultural strength although having been well developed (and for the most part contended for and controlled by various groups as opposed to something like viral marketing which spreads indefinitely erratically) didn't also somehow contribute to a total amalgamation of populations in the land mass of present day China. It certainly pushes the theory of the controlling nature of war and its intricacies in dealing with state formation. In empire speak, a more socially developed or hierarchical population beginning with endemic origins starts asserting itself in other environments due to resource accumulation but must gradually incorporate greater diversity. If this factor of stability wasn't present and continually maintained the population would remain tribal and not become a full fledged state. So, the Huaxia tribe once upon a time a seemingly pure race had grown to become the Han state. If you start to insufficiently define the Han state as a tribe you would characteristically have to push the boundaries of its cultural dominance in order to reestablish its foundation as a state. You invariably end up with something like the Pax Mongolica which totally threw itself into disarray.
I have the fortune of living in the part of the world which has use for toilet paper, but not douches.

#6 Beth

Beth

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 24 posts

Posted 25 February 2010 - 04:29 PM

I think it has been established that the Han ethnic group is not that of a pure one.

Check these articles out about the genes of the North and South Chinese by DNA Tribes (an organization that collects DNA from every person of the continent): S. Chinese
N. Chinese
Of the samples collected from the South Chinese, 46.2% of its genetic contribution comes from SE Asian, 30.3% Tibetan, 12.6% North Chinese, and 10.8% Japanese.

Of the samples collected from the North Chinese, 70.4% of their genetic contribution comes from the South Chinese, 15.0% Japanese, 11.8% Altaian, 2.4% American Indian.

Edited by Beth, 25 February 2010 - 04:31 PM.


#7 mrclub

mrclub

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • Supreme Scholar (Jinshi)
  • 2,709 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Singapore
  • Interests:Chinese Language/Dialects, history on China, Chinese Culture
  • Languages spoken:English, Mandarin, Singapore Teochew
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:Han Chinese (Teochew People)
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Language
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Forummer

Posted 25 February 2010 - 07:41 PM

I think it has been established that the Han ethnic group is not that of a pure one.

Check these articles out about the genes of the North and South Chinese by DNA Tribes (an organization that collects DNA from every person of the continent): S. Chinese
N. Chinese
Of the samples collected from the South Chinese, 46.2% of its genetic contribution comes from SE Asian, 30.3% Tibetan, 12.6% North Chinese, and 10.8% Japanese.

Of the samples collected from the North Chinese, 70.4% of their genetic contribution comes from the South Chinese, 15.0% Japanese, 11.8% Altaian, 2.4% American Indian.


How come American Indian is involved ? I am surprised though.
Shantou Skyline (汕头市的天际线)
Posted Image

#8 baibushe

baibushe

    General of the Guard (Hujun Zhongwei/Jinjun Tongshuai 护军中尉/禁军统帅)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 113 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA
  • Interests:music, art, science, languages
  • Languages spoken:Taiwanese Hokkien, Mandarin, Japanese, French, English
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:Han (Hokkien and Hakka), Thao, Siraya, maybe some Manchu and Dutch
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Ethnicities,Peoples
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Biology, Chemistry, Taiwanese aborigines, art, especially ceramics, Japanese traditional music

Posted 25 February 2010 - 11:46 PM

I think it's referring to DNA that they have in common with American Indians and are better known in that group, not actual American Indians.

#9 qrasy

qrasy

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • CHF Han Lin Scholar
  • 4,743 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Physics, Chemistry, Maths, Biology, Languages, Ethnicity, History, etc.
  • Languages spoken:Mandarin Chinese, Indonesian, English, Cantonese
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:Han Chinese (Southeastern)
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Other Interests
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese Linguistics

Posted 26 February 2010 - 01:58 AM

I think it has been established that the Han ethnic group is not that of a pure one.

Check these articles out about the genes of the North and South Chinese by DNA Tribes (an organization that collects DNA from every person of the continent): S. Chinese
N. Chinese
Of the samples collected from the South Chinese, 46.2% of its genetic contribution comes from SE Asian, 30.3% Tibetan, 12.6% North Chinese, and 10.8% Japanese.

Of the samples collected from the North Chinese, 70.4% of their genetic contribution comes from the South Chinese, 15.0% Japanese, 11.8% Altaian, 2.4% American Indian.

I think it's referring to DNA that they have in common with American Indians and are better known in that group, not actual American Indians.

Yes, therefore the statement in the post was misleading.
I would also guess it means "something that is higher in percentage for American Indian than the rest of the world" (and therefore not necessarily 'something that originates in American Indian'). But reading again, it seems that it might be something a bit different (though not a significant one). It's like trying to represent "South Chinese DNA" in terms of "DNAs of the rest of the world". It's a bit circular, btw. Isn't it "funny" to say that South Chinese is 12.6% North Chinese while at the same time North Chinese is 70.4% South Chinese? [Then would "South Chinese" be 12.6% x 70.4% "South Chinese"?]

Also note that "direction" may not be as what it looks like even though the graphs had the arrows "from [outside] to [here]".

I am guessing that, if it's the method used, even if the scenario is such that group A and group B never have people exchange, once group A and group B shared something in common within themselves but not other parts of the world, both "A has xx% B" and "B has xx% A" will result..
I guess that's also how "Australian" presence can be "felt" in Africa and Middle East.
We see that Tibetan and South Chinese has big numbers for each others. Of course there might be some people exchange between them, but I guess that won't be as big as 30% and 70%; if it's the numbers it's more like they already shared something to begin with.

If some people from A moves into C (but not the reverse), then A will be shown to have some percentage of C as well; and if people from A moves to both C and D, then C will show up to have a percentage of D and vice versa.
So there's nothing strange even if American Indians and Australians show up in Mesopotamian region.

Edited by qrasy, 26 February 2010 - 02:19 AM.

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the liedeliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - JFK

One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas. - Neil deGrasse Tyson

#10 Beth

Beth

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 24 posts

Posted 26 February 2010 - 03:34 AM

But reading again, it seems that it might be something a bit different (though not a significant one). It's like trying to represent "South Chinese DNA" in terms of "DNAs of the rest of the world". It's a bit circular, btw. Isn't it "funny" to say that South Chinese is 12.6% North Chinese while at the same time North Chinese is 70.4% South Chinese? [Then would "South Chinese" be 12.6% x 70.4% "South Chinese"?]

Also note that "direction" may not be as what it looks like even though the graphs had the arrows "from [outside] to [here]".

I am guessing that, if it's the method used, even if the scenario is such that group A and group B never have people exchange, once group A and group B shared something in common within themselves but not other parts of the world, both "A has xx% B" and "B has xx% A" will result..
I guess that's also how "Australian" presence can be "felt" in Africa and Middle East.
We see that Tibetan and South Chinese has big numbers for each others. Of course there might be some people exchange between them, but I guess that won't be as big as 30% and 70%; if it's the numbers it's more like they already shared something to begin with.

If some people from A moves into C (but not the reverse), then A will be shown to have some percentage of C as well; and if people from A moves to both C and D, then C will show up to have a percentage of D and vice versa.
So there's nothing strange even if American Indians and Australians show up in Mesopotamian region.


I was confused as well as to why the South Chinese have so little genetic contribution from the North Chinese, yet from the other article the North Chinese have nearly 70% of genetic contributions from the South Chinese. Things started to make sense to me after thinking about the graphs in terms of gene flow and how it made its way into certain regions and how much genetic contribution from an ethnic group was founded from the sample of population(s) taken. I'll think about this more later.

#11 AhMan

AhMan

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 495 posts

Posted 28 February 2010 - 09:59 PM

There is a mis-designation of North and South in this article. South Chinese in this article actually means North and Central Chinese (look at the map) while South Chinese as we know it is grouped into South East Asian.
It makes sense that Australian (aboriginals) "contributed" to the gene pool of Middle East people if we consider the routes that Australian aboriginal ancestors migrated out of Africa.
About the 70% and 12.6%, my interpretation is that "North Chinese" are more homogeneous than "South Chinese", therefore they have less unique markers than South Chinese. Suppose South Chinese had 100 unique markers then 13 of them would come from the North and these 13 markers represent 70% of unique markers from the North Chinese (which makes total unique markers of North Chinese around 19.)
한국아가씨아주섹시오

#12 KingLee99

KingLee99

    County Magistrate (Xianling 县令)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 8 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    History, art of war, culture

Posted 01 March 2010 - 04:08 PM

Time to finally answer the question: who are the Han?

Following up on last week's post, the Han incorporated even more nomadic genes from the Manchus, Mongols and Khitans.

Read:

http://knowledgechin...ese-part-3.html

#13 bloodmerchant

bloodmerchant

    State Undersecretary (Shangshu Lang 尚书郎)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 633 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Chinese History, Wu Chinese language, Chinese culture, Chinese linguistics, Wu Chinese culture, Southern Chinese languages
  • Languages spoken:English (American), Wu Chinese (Shanghainese)
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:American-born Han Chinese (Shanghainese/Jiangnanese)
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Language
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Biology, Linguistics, Medieval History

Posted 02 March 2010 - 10:49 AM

Han Chinese, according to the American Journal of Genetics, states that Han Chinese from every province compared, have a 0.3% genetic difference. Han Chinese aren't a pure ethnic group and have never claimed to be pure.

http://hk.news.yahoo...126/4/fd8v.html

We are all 99% genetically similar to each other.

Does it matter if Han Chinese are pure or not? You are only quoting your own blogs as original research.
吳王夫差將伐齊,子胥曰:不可。夫齊之與吳也,習俗不同,言語不通,我得其地不能處,得其民不得使。夫吳之與越也,接土鄰境,壤交通屬,習俗同,言語通,我得其地能處之,得其民能使之。
─伍子胥 《知化》,《呂氏春秋》




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users