Jump to content


Photo

Four Categories of Asians


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#31 bloodmerchant

bloodmerchant

    State Undersecretary (Shangshu Lang 尚书郎)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 611 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 24 May 2010 - 07:27 PM

Is it in 商南, Southeastern corner of Shaanxi bordering Hubei and Henan?

Yes, but Gan speakers are presumably isolated from one another in Shangnan.


落蘇 leh su = Japanese nasu ~ nasubi ("eggplant")?
茄子 ga tsy = Manchu haši ("eggplant")?

Does anyone here know the history of domestication of the eggplant?

I don't know of it, but the Middle Chinese pronunciation of "茄" was (determined to be) "exceptional" phonetically (within the restriction of the phonology of Middle Chinese), not unlike it's loaned from a neighboring language. I read somewhere that it was a Southern crop (can't remember where). And, this word sounds like Vietnamese Cà.
子 is a common Chinese suffix, so if "ha" by itself doesn't mean eggplant in Manchu we can be quite sure that Manchu imported it.

Usually Shanghainese won't confuse l and n, but given the poorness of communication in the past they could be related [unsure].
Using 2 words for the same plant is paralleled in English: "aubergine" and "eggplant".

I wonder how Wikipedia got it, but it's said it's native to India.

It's said that the first mention of the eggplant in China is in 齊民要術. But I have no idea what it was called during that time (It might even be 茄).

The Japanese term nasu in Kanji is 奈須, and it was originally called なすび nasubi (奈須比) since the Nara period. But 落蘇 was commonly used during the Song dynasty.

Han Chinese look the same all over China (whether north or south) but it is normal that there are slight variants, as no group is pure Han. For example a Han Chinese from Taishan Guangdong looks the same like any other Han Chinese:

To be honest, I've seen some phenotypical variation in Taishanese varies widely from person to person. I've met a Taishanese whose eyes were 'smaller' than mine.

Edited by bloodmerchant, 24 May 2010 - 07:28 PM.

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》

#32 Moonstone

Moonstone

    Military Commissioner (Jiedushi 节度使)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 99 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Japanese dialectology and historical linguistics; Asian genetics

Posted 25 May 2010 - 04:26 PM

It's said that the first mention of the eggplant in China is in 齊民要術. But I have no idea what it was called during that time (It might even be 茄).

According to Wikipedia, "The first known written record of the plant is found in Qí mín yào shù, an ancient Chinese agricultural treatise completed in 544." This must be the 《齊民要術》 to which you have referred. It would be helpful if someone could find a copy of the part of this text in which the eggplant is mentioned.

The Japanese term nasu in Kanji is 奈須, and it was originally called なすび nasubi (奈須比) since the Nara period. But 落蘇 was commonly used during the Song dynasty.

《奈須》 would be an example of manyōgana. In modern times, that sort of transcription would be used only for a personal name or for a toponym. The following is an image of a professor whose surname is 奈須 Nasu:
Posted Image
(Dr. Nasu is originally from Tokushima Prefecture of eastern Shikoku, but he currently teaches at Sophia University in Tokyo. I suppose that he must dislike having people think of him as "Dr. Eggplant.")

There is an area in northern Tochigi Prefecture called the Nasu Region (那須地方) or the Nasu Plateau (那須高原) that is famous for its hot springs and scenic views. A different Chinese character is used to represent /na/ in this toponym. The following is a panoramic image of Mt. Nasu (那須岳), which is actually a cluster of several volcanic peaks, with the Nasu Plateau in the foreground at left:

Posted Image

However, if your dating of the earliest attestations of /nasu/ and /nasubi/ to the Nara period (basically the 8th century CE) is correct, the manyōgana renditions of the Japanese words for "eggplant" do demonstrate that those words have been in use in Japan without any significant morphophonological change since at least 160 years before the beginning of the Song Dynasty in the mid-10th century CE.

When modern Japanese people write the Japanese word for "eggplant," they usually write 茄子 in Chinese characters and read it as /nasu/. In scientific texts, it is standard practice to write names of plant and animal taxa in katakana, so the word for "eggplant" in a Japanese scientific text will normally appear as ナス, and the name of the family Solanaceae will be rendered as ナス科.

Edited by Moonstone, 25 May 2010 - 11:21 PM.


#33 noctorro

noctorro

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 15 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Languages spoken:English, French, Japanese
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:Chinese Canadian
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    General Chinese Culture
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    3D Artist

Posted 09 August 2010 - 09:58 PM

Just to swing this topic back to around the first page, I'm just wondering where you guys think I sit as far as category 1 or 2, far as Chinese goes. To be honest, I can't really tell the difference between the two categories of Chinese you guys listed (North vs. South) as the only things that stand out to me are unique features of individuals but not as a whole ... i guess, "people" is the word I'm looking for :P You guys seem so much more informed than I am, and I'm really curious to see if my facial features are north/south.

And yes, I'm also probably a brand new level of ugly so no need to rub it in! :P

Posted Image

#34 SNK_1408

SNK_1408

    Chief State Secretary (Shangshu Ling 尚书令)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Busan, LA, Sydney
  • Languages spoken:English, Korean, Japanese, Farci
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:South Korean
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese, Korea, Japanese, Human evolution and migration

Posted 07 September 2010 - 03:56 AM

People should know looks can be deceiving, you could be looking like West European and your genetic traces to Chinese or African grand parents. That's why they will have to go through y-chromosome, mt-DNA, Autosomal DNA and blood tests to fully trace your origin.

here is interesting reading about Han Chinese
http://dienekes.blog...ure-of-han.html
역사를 보면 결국 힘있는 자가 힘없는 자를 정복하고 약탈하는 것입니다.
역사를 왜곡하는 민족은 반드시 멸망한다.
Posted Image

#35 Karakhan

Karakhan

    Chief State Secretary (Shangshu Ling 尚书令)

  • Admin
  • 907 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Ethnicities,Peoples
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese Ethnic Minorities, Central Asian Ethnicities

Posted 19 September 2010 - 12:42 AM

Asia is a huge continent that expands North-South & East-West, bigger than Europe, therefore having 2 categories for Asia (excluding South Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East) of North Asian and SE Asian would not make sense. From my view, i would divide Asians like this - I made up these terms:

1) Northern Asian (Mongolian/Inuit Look - areas North of the Yellow River up until Russia's Siberia region); Some Northern Chinese, like Henan people, have a diverse look, for example some look southern han chinese and others have this Inuit/Mongolian/Kazazh look. Most Koreans would belong to this categore, but a fair amount of Koreans look Southern Chinese as well aka Central-East Category =/

2) Central-East Asian look (the areas of China between Guangdong all the way north until Sichuan aka South of the Yellow River/Huai); your general Han Chinese look ie Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, Yi jianlian, Wen Jiabao,...

3) South East Asian look (the Indo-China Mainland area ie Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, etc)

4) Malay-Polynesian look (found in Malaysia, Philipines, Indonesia, aboriginals of Taiwan, the polynesian islands ie Fiji, Hawaii); different from South-east asian in the mainland, as this group is more darker in skin colour and have this unique malay-polynesian look distinct from other SE Asians.

------------------------------------------------------

I would totally not consider Southern Chinese as SE Asians as there is a huge difference. I would not consider Northern Chinese as a homogeneous group neither as there is a diversity in look as well; the Mongol look and Southern Han look (ie Wen JiaBao and Zhou Enlai).


the problem with this is that it relies purely on geographic divisions while reality is much more complex.
Central Asians alone have completely varied looks, from Mediterranean to completely Mongoloid. Inuits do not look like ethnic groups in Siberia or Central Asia at all and their genetic make up, although rooted in mainland Asia.. has significant differences.

Malays and Polynesians are often grouped together, but this is primarily linguistic. in terms of facial features they also look considerably different, for example Polynesians are much taller and larger, their noses are not as flat, eyes are larger, hair is wavy. Melanesians are much darker, have coiled hair. Micronesians have slimmer builds, etc. In addition Fiji is not Polynesian, it is Melanesian. The Pacific islanders tend to fall within Melanesian, Micronesian, and Polynesian areas.

#36 xng

xng

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • CHF Han Lin Scholar
  • 3,863 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Languages spoken:English, Cantonese, Minnan, Mandarin, Singlish, Thai
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:Han Chinese
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Language
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese Linguistics, Buddhism, East Asian anthropology

Posted 19 September 2010 - 04:25 AM

And yes, I'm also probably a brand new level of ugly so no need to rub it in! :P

Posted Image


Just because you don't have the typical 'European look' doesn't mean you're ugly. Each main group of human have their own unique characteristics. In fact, to the chinese in the past, the Europeans are ugly (that's why they are called 'gwai lou' in cantonese).

You definitely belong to the northern chinese look and some will even say handsome.

Edited by xng, 19 September 2010 - 04:39 AM.


#37 xng

xng

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • CHF Han Lin Scholar
  • 3,863 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Languages spoken:English, Cantonese, Minnan, Mandarin, Singlish, Thai
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:Han Chinese
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Language
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese Linguistics, Buddhism, East Asian anthropology

Posted 19 September 2010 - 04:33 AM

the problem with this is that it relies purely on geographic divisions while reality is much more complex.


If there were no migration of human, the geographic division is probably quite accurate. We're talking about the original majority inhabitants of that area and not any interracial mixing or migration which may occur later.

However, I disagree on two points in Andy Lau's classification.

1. The mainland SEA and the malays should belong to one group. The Tai-Kadai/Burmese people migrated from South China/Tibet into mainland SEA;thereore, they are not the natives there. The Tai-Kadai/Burmese should belong to the South China group.

The real natives ie. Mon Khmer speaking people should represent the mainland SEA people instead. They (no interracial mixing) can't be distinguished from the malays reliably. They have darker skin, thicker lips, bigger eyes etc than the south chinese/tai-kadai.

2. The polynesian should be separated from the malays for reasons stated by you.

Edited by xng, 19 September 2010 - 04:38 AM.


#38 SNK_1408

SNK_1408

    Chief State Secretary (Shangshu Ling 尚书令)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Busan, LA, Sydney
  • Languages spoken:English, Korean, Japanese, Farci
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:South Korean
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese, Korea, Japanese, Human evolution and migration

Posted 20 September 2010 - 01:05 AM

Only 150 years of migration have completely changed face of the modern world, most of the old world are probably no longer can be trace their true origins.

Basic four categories of Asians:

1. Northern Mongoloids (Mongolian, Northern Han, Koreans and Japanese and some Siberian tribes)
2. South Asians (Mostly Indian, Pakistanis, Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan)
3. Middle easterners (Arabians, Persian, Turkish, Central Asians*1 etc..)
4. Southern Mongoloids (Southern Han, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Burmese, Laos, Thais, Malaysian*2, Indonesian*2, Filipinos etc..)

*1- Central Asian are 50% Northern Mongoloids and 30% mixture of Middle easterners, 5% European and 5% of South Asians.
*2- 70% Southern Mongoloids and 30% South Asians.

Note: Interesting fact is they share all close proximity of cultures according to their group. Also, Northern Mongoloids and South Asians stands out among four categories with their distinctive physical appearances, which suggest Middle easterners and Southern Mongoloids are result of heavy mixtures than Northern Mongoloids and South Asians, this is because Northern Mongoloid group are geographically more isolated, particularly Koreans and Japanese. Hence both Korean and Japanese languages are under isolated group.

Edited by SNK_1408, 20 September 2010 - 01:22 AM.

역사를 보면 결국 힘있는 자가 힘없는 자를 정복하고 약탈하는 것입니다.
역사를 왜곡하는 민족은 반드시 멸망한다.
Posted Image

#39 Karakhan

Karakhan

    Chief State Secretary (Shangshu Ling 尚书令)

  • Admin
  • 907 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Ethnicities,Peoples
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese Ethnic Minorities, Central Asian Ethnicities

Posted 23 September 2010 - 01:55 PM

Only 150 years of migration have completely changed face of the modern world, most of the old world are probably no longer can be trace their true origins.

Basic four categories of Asians:

1. Northern Mongoloids (Mongolian, Northern Han, Koreans and Japanese and some Siberian tribes)
2. South Asians (Mostly Indian, Pakistanis, Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan)
3. Middle easterners (Arabians, Persian, Turkish, Central Asians*1 etc..)
4. Southern Mongoloids (Southern Han, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Burmese, Laos, Thais, Malaysian*2, Indonesian*2, Filipinos etc..)

*1- Central Asian are 50% Northern Mongoloids and 30% mixture of Middle easterners, 5% European and 5% of South Asians.
*2- 70% Southern Mongoloids and 30% South Asians.


such categorizations are obsolete. the -oids (mongoloid, caucasoid, negroid, etc) are generally terms used in the first half of the 20th century and no longer utilized by most modern anthropologists.

#40 mohistManiac

mohistManiac

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

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

Posted 23 September 2010 - 08:42 PM

I'll give you four Mandarin speaking female stars, they have quite distinguishing looks. Zhang Ziyi. Zhou Xun. You can see this pair in the movie Ye Yan or Night Banquet. Zhao Wei. Lin Chi Ling. You can see this pair in the movie Chibi or Red Cliff. I don't know about you guys but Lin Chi Ling and Zhao Wei look to be really Taiwanese even though only Lin Chi Ling is from Taiwan and the other 3 from the mainland. Although Lin Chi Ling even looks to be a little Japanese even though Taiwanese are supposed to be more Chinese than the mainlanders themselves are. While Zhang Ziyi looks to be Manchu she was misplaced in the role of a Japanese geisha in Memoirs of a Geisha which was the role that Lin Chi Ling should have received (I think she also speaks Japanese besides looking a little bit) or they could have chosen an actual Japanese. Ziyi's best role has always been in Crouching Tiger Hidden dragon where she was set up as inclusive within the Banner Peoples system paralleling at her non-Han like rebellious nature. Zhao Wei looks quite northwesternly Chinese even though she was born out of Zhejiang province. How do guys rate these actresses?
I have the fortune of living in the part of the world which has use for toilet paper, but not douches.

#41 SNK_1408

SNK_1408

    Chief State Secretary (Shangshu Ling 尚书令)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Busan, LA, Sydney
  • Languages spoken:English, Korean, Japanese, Farci
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:South Korean
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese, Korea, Japanese, Human evolution and migration

Posted 24 September 2010 - 02:24 AM

such categorizations are obsolete. the -oids (mongoloid, caucasoid, negroid, etc) are generally terms used in the first half of the 20th century and no longer utilized by most modern anthropologists.


have a better suggestion?
So what are the new terms being use by modern anthropologists?
역사를 보면 결국 힘있는 자가 힘없는 자를 정복하고 약탈하는 것입니다.
역사를 왜곡하는 민족은 반드시 멸망한다.
Posted Image

#42 Karakhan

Karakhan

    Chief State Secretary (Shangshu Ling 尚书令)

  • Admin
  • 907 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Ethnicities,Peoples
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese Ethnic Minorities, Central Asian Ethnicities

Posted 25 September 2010 - 02:11 PM

have a better suggestion?
So what are the new terms being use by modern anthropologists?


no terms just genetics. the problem is that the average person doesn't understand them.. you mention haplogroups and they get confused.. which is why categorizations are popular.. they simplify complicated information into broad containers, even though the reality is that things are not so easily clear cut. Sure, it is obvious a Korean and Malaysian have obvious differences, but places such as Korea and Japan which are relatively homogeneous may be easily categorized, the reality is that many areas, such as Central Asia and South East Asia which have long been crossroads for migrating populations, are much more heterogeneous and difficult to define. Categories are also used by those who seek to explain what one is unfamiliar with. Take for example "Mongoloids" a category created by Europeans. At first they applied it to all Asians, from Siberia all the way down to Indonesia. As time went by, they realized that ethnic groups in modern day Malaysia and Indonesia were somehow different.. some of them separated them into a new category called Australoids. Around WWII, Germans and British then started new terms such as Tungusids, etc.. even though such categories reflect more linguistic categorization than racial/ethnic ones. For some time now, such mass and broad terms have dropped out of use by most academics, who prefer to use genetic data, but again, the average person tries to simplify such data.. for example the supposed Cohen gene which people use to measure Jewishness based on some markers in haplogroup J. They will ignore all the other genetic background and focus on those sole markers as indicative of Jewishness, despite the fact that neighboring Arabs and other populations also share the same markers.

In order to understand why this entire thread on categories fails, you can read Robert Brubakers articles on ethnicity such as 2002 Ethnicity with out groups, or Brubaker & Coppers 2000 article Beyond identity.

some excerpts:

F         science concepts would seem as basic, even indispensable,
as that of group. In disciplinary terms, ‘group’ would appear
to be a core concept for sociology, political science, anthropology,
demography and social psychology. In substantive terms, it would seem
to be fundamental to the study of political mobilization, cultural identity,
economic interests, social class, status groups, collective action,
kinship, gender, religion, ethnicity, race, multiculturalism, and minorities
of every kind.
Yet despite this seeming centrality, the concept ‘group’ has remained
curiously unscrutinized in recent years.There is, to be sure, a substantial
social psychological literature addressing the concept (Hamilton et al.
, McGrath ), but this has had little resonance outside that
sub-discipline. Elsewhere in the social sciences, the recent literature
addressing the concept ‘group’ is sparse, especially by comparison with
the immense literature on such concepts as class, identity, gender, ethnicity,
or multiculturalism—topics in which the concept ‘group’ is
implicated, yet seldom analyzed its own terms (). ‘Group’ functions as
a seemingly unproblematic, taken-for-granted concept, apparently in no
need of particular scrutiny or explication. As a result, we tend to take for
granted not only the concept ‘group’, but also ‘groups’—the putative
things-in-the-world towhich the concept refers.


Challenges to ‘groupism’, however, have been uneven. They have
been striking—to take just one example—in the study of class, especially
in the study of the working class, a term that is hard to use today without
quotation marks or some other distancing device. Yet ethnic groups
continue to be understood as entities and cast as actors. To be sure,
constructivist approaches of one kind or another are now dominant in
academic discussions of ethnicity. Yet everyday talk, policy analysis,
media reports, and even much ostensibly constructivist academic writing
routinely frame accounts of ethnic, racial and national conflict in
groupist terms as the struggles ‘of’ ethnic groups, races, and nations ().
Somehow, when we talk about ethnicity, and even more so when we talk
about ethnic conflict, we almost automatically find ourselves talking
about ethnic groups.
Now it might be asked: ‘What’s wrong with this?’ After all, it seems
to be mere common sense to treat ethnic struggles as the struggles of
ethnic groups, and ethnic conflict as conflict between such groups. I
agree that this is the—or at least a—common-sense view of the matter.
But we cannot rely on common sense here. Ethnic common sense—the
tendency to partition the social world into putatively deeply constituted,
quasi-natural intrinsic kinds (Hirschfeld )—is a key part of what we
want to explain, not what we want to explain things with; it belongs to
our empirical data, not to our analytical toolkit (). Cognitive anthropologists
and social psychologists have accumulated a good deal of evidence
about common-sense ways of carving up the social world—about
what Lawrence Hirschfeld () has called ‘folk sociologies’. The evidence
suggests that some common sense social categories—and notably
common sense ethnic and racial categories—tend to be essentializing
and naturalizing (Rothbart and Taylor ; Hirschfeld ; Gil-
White ). They are the vehicles of what has been called a ‘participants’
primordialism’ (Smith : ) or a ‘psychological essentialism’
(Medin ). We obviously cannot ignore such common sense
primordialism. But that does not mean we should simply replicate it in
our scholarly analyses or policy assessments. As ‘analysts of naturalizers’,
we need not be ‘analytic naturalizers’ (Gil-White : ).
Instead, we need to break with vernacular categories and commonsense
understandings.We need to break, for example, with the seemingly
obvious and uncontroversial point that ethnic conflict involves conflict
between ethnic groups. I want to suggest that ethnic conflict—or what
might better be called ethnicized or ethnically framed conflict—need
not, and should not, be understood as conflict between ethnic groups, just
as racial or racially framed conflict need not be understood as conflict
between races, or nationally framed conflict as conflict between nations.
Participants, of course, regularly do represent ethnic, racial and
national conflict in such groupist, even primordialist terms. They often
cast ethnic groups, races or nations as the protagonists—the heroes and
martyrs—of such struggles. But this is no warrant for analysts to do so.
We must, of course, take vernacular categories and participants’
understandings seriously, for they are partly constitutive of our objects
of study. But we should not uncritically adopt categories of ethnopolitical
practice as our categories of social analysis. Apart from the general unreliability
of ethnic common sense as a guide for social analysis, we should
remember that participants’ accounts—especially those of specialists in
ethnicity such as ethnopolitical entrepreneurs, who, unlike nonspecialists,
may live ‘off’ as well as ‘for’ ethnicity—often have what Pierre
Bourdieu has called a performative character. By invoking groups, they
seek to evoke them, summon them, call them into being. Their categories
are for doing—designed to stir, summon, justify, mobilize, kindle and
energize. By reifying groups, by treating them as substantial things-inthe-
world, ethnopolitical entrepreneurs may, as Bourdieu notes,
‘contribute to producing what they apparently describe or designate’
(a: ) ().
Reification is a social process, not simply an intellectual bad habit. As
a social process, it is central to the practice of politicized ethnicity. And
appropriately so. To criticize ethnopolitical entrepreneurs for reifying
ethnic groups would be a kind of category mistake. Reifying groups is
precisely what ethnopolitical entrepreneurs are in the business of doing.
When they are successful, the political fiction of the unified group can be
momentarily yet powerfully realized in practice. As analysts, we should
certainly try to account for the ways in which—and conditions under
which—this practice of reification, this powerful crystallization of
group feeling, can work. This may be one of the most important tasks of
the theory of ethnic conflict. But we should avoid unintentionally doubling
or reinforcing the reification of ethnic groups in ethnopolitical practice
with a reification of such groups in social analysis.


Rethinking ethnicity
We need to rethink not only ethnic conflict, but also what we mean by
ethnicity itself.This is not a matter of seeking agreement on a definition.
The intricate and ever-recommencing definitional casuistry in studies of
ethnicity, race and nationalism has done little to advance the discussion,
and indeed can be viewed as a symptom of the non-cumulative nature of
research in the field. It is rather a matter of critically scrutinizing our
conceptual tools. Ethnicity, race and nation should be conceptualized
not as substances or things or entities or organisms or collective
individuals—as the imagery of discrete, concrete, tangible, bounded and
enduring ‘groups’ encourages us to do—but rather in relational, processual,
dynamic, eventful and disaggregated terms. This means thinking
of ethnicity, race and nation not in terms of substantial groups or
entities but in terms of practical categories, cultural idioms, cognitive
schemas, discursive frames, organizational routines, institutional forms,
political projects and contingent events. It means thinking of ethnicization,
racialization and nationalization as political, social, cultural and psychological
processes. And it means taking as a basic analytical category not
the ‘group’ as an entity but groupness as a contextually fluctuating
conceptual variable. Stated baldly in this fashion, these are of course
mere slogans; I will try to fill them out a bit inwhat follows.
The reality of ethnicity
To rethink ethnicity, race and nationhood along these lines is in no
way to dispute their reality, minimize their power or discount their
significance; it is to construe their reality, power and significance in a
different way. Understanding the reality of race, for example, does not
require us to posit the existence of races. Racial idioms, ideologies, narratives,
categories and systems of classification and racialized ways of
seeing, thinking, talking and framing claims are real and consequential,
especially when they are embedded in powerful organizations. But the
reality of race—and even its overwhelming coercive power in some
settings—does not depend on the existence of ‘races’. Similarly, the
reality of ethnicity and nationhood—and the overriding power of ethnic
and national identifications in some settings—does not depend on the
existence of ethnic groups or nations as substantial groups or entities.



#43 SNK_1408

SNK_1408

    Chief State Secretary (Shangshu Ling 尚书令)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Busan, LA, Sydney
  • Languages spoken:English, Korean, Japanese, Farci
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:South Korean
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese, Korea, Japanese, Human evolution and migration

Posted 27 September 2010 - 12:02 AM

no terms just genetics. the problem is that the average person doesn't understand them.. you mention haplogroups and they get confused.. which is why categorizations are popular.. they simplify complicated information into broad containers, even though the reality is that things are not so easily clear cut. Sure, it is obvious a Korean and Malaysian have obvious differences, but places such as Korea and Japan which are relatively homogeneous may be easily categorized, the reality is that many areas, such as Central Asia and South East Asia which have long been crossroads for migrating populations, are much more heterogeneous and difficult to define. Categories are also used by those who seek to explain what one is unfamiliar with. Take for example "Mongoloids" a category created by Europeans. At first they applied it to all Asians, from Siberia all the way down to Indonesia. As time went by, they realized that ethnic groups in modern day Malaysia and Indonesia were somehow different.. some of them separated them into a new category called Australoids. Around WWII, Germans and British then started new terms such as Tungusids, etc.. even though such categories reflect more linguistic categorization than racial/ethnic ones. For some time now, such mass and broad terms have dropped out of use by most academics, who prefer to use genetic data, but again, the average person tries to simplify such data.. for example the supposed Cohen gene which people use to measure Jewishness based on some markers in haplogroup J. They will ignore all the other genetic background and focus on those sole markers as indicative of Jewishness, despite the fact that neighboring Arabs and other populations also share the same markers.

In order to understand why this entire thread on categories fails, you can read Robert Brubakers articles on ethnicity such as 2002 Ethnicity with out groups, or Brubaker & Coppers 2000 article Beyond identity.

some excerpts:


OK, so Mongoloids is really referring to Asian, or more like East Asian but there are divided into NE Asian, SE Asian, South Asian, Central Asian etc... I know it's difficult to categorized people in modern era due to some degree of inter-racial marriages now have produced new racial groups.

It all comes down to categorizing people under microscope aka "biology" and by just using Autosomal dna analysis alone can categorized major ethnicity from each nations.
역사를 보면 결국 힘있는 자가 힘없는 자를 정복하고 약탈하는 것입니다.
역사를 왜곡하는 민족은 반드시 멸망한다.
Posted Image

#44 Karakhan

Karakhan

    Chief State Secretary (Shangshu Ling 尚书令)

  • Admin
  • 907 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Ethnicities,Peoples
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese Ethnic Minorities, Central Asian Ethnicities

Posted 28 September 2010 - 02:43 PM

OK, so Mongoloids is really referring to Asian, or more like East Asian but there are divided into NE Asian, SE Asian, South Asian, Central Asian etc... I know it's difficult to categorized people in modern era due to some degree of inter-racial marriages now have produced new racial groups.


no its not just modern era. These categories were created rather recently (late 19th century to the first half of the 20th century) by European anthropologists. Or in other words, well after "inter-racial" marriages. What these -oids classification does is try to make clear cut distinctions in a world where there is none because the migration of people is always a constant. This may not be so obvious in areas such as Korea and Japan which are historically at the end point of migration routes.. but when you get into areas such as Central Asia and South East Asia which lie in major migration routes, the distinction is very blurry. Central Asians can range from looking very Persian to very Mongolian, with most falling somewhere in between.. South East Asians include those who could pass as East Asian (not including those of Chinese or mixed Chinese descent), Malay, and even Melanesian.. and it can even be within the same family. These variety of physical features have existed far before the term Mongoloid and Caucasoid came into use as evidence has shown that mixed looking people were in Central Asia for hundreds of years. For this reason, the definition of Mongoloid has changed so many times until it fell completely out of use by modern anthropologists. If you insist on using that term, then by what standards and characteristics do you include within the Mongoloid group?

#45 xng

xng

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • CHF Han Lin Scholar
  • 3,863 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Languages spoken:English, Cantonese, Minnan, Mandarin, Singlish, Thai
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:Han Chinese
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Language
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese Linguistics, Buddhism, East Asian anthropology

Posted 29 September 2010 - 01:56 AM

Only 150 years of migration have completely changed face of the modern world, most of the old world are probably no longer can be trace their true origins.



Mid eastern people are actually closer to europeans than asians. And so are the aryan people from north india eg. pakistan, bangladesh etc.

These people are caucasoids.

The continent asia is a europe-centric concept and bears no logical resemblance to anthropology.

Edited by xng, 29 September 2010 - 01:57 AM.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users