10
   

Are the Chinese and the Japanese related?

 
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 07:20 am
We learn something new every day. Re: the Fox story. Now it appears that humans were using some kind of boat to get to what is now Crete about 100,000 years ago. That used to be the age mark of when humans had barely begun to establish any kind of culture.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/science/16archeo.html?ref=science

Everybody from just 5,000 years ago? Nah. I scent just a little whiff of someone trying to find proof of a young earth.

Joe(hail, brothers and sisters)Nation
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 07:31 am
Something i find more amazing is that at some time between 2000 and 1500 years ago, people from either Borneo or the Celebes struck out across the Indian ocean in outrigger canoes, and eventually made landfall on the island we now call Madagascar. That has to be the most spectacular voyage of pre-modern humans.

Crete can be reached from the mainland of the Peloponnesus by a series of voyages from one island to the next, each island being in sight of the previous one. To get from Borneo to Madagascar, you have to sail out of sight of land for weeks, or even months, in the Indian Ocean, where the waves have sunk, in seconds, European warships which broached to within the last two centuries. Now that was seamanship!
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 03:08 am
The most spectacular voyage of pre-modern humans was by the Australian Aboriginee. They came in two waves to Australia, the latest about 40,000 years ago, and went as far as South America, where they were later wiped out by the Ameri-indians when they invaded.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 08:24 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:
. . . and went as far as South America, where they were later wiped out by the Ameri-indians when they invaded.


I'd be curious to know if you have some reliable evidence that this is so.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 05:43 pm
@Setanta,
Certainly. It is always a pleasure to deal with polite people of an intellectual nature.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/430944.stm
and the first inhabitants of North America were white europeans.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 08:25 am
If Australia was settled by man 40,000 years ago, and as your BBC source claims, stone tools have been found in Brazil at sites which are 50,000 years old, then it cannot reasonably be claimed that South America was first settled by Australian Aborigines. Furthermore, the article you link speaks of a skull found in a stratum which is described as being no older than 12,000 ybp, and artwork no older than 17,000 ybp--which rather beggars other claims in the article about a timeline running back to 50,000 ybp. Now it may well be that the people who came over the Asian land bridge approximately 11,000 ybp were not the first inhabitants of the two American continents, but this argument is not sustained by any evidence they present to the effect that the first inhabitants came from Melanesia--they could as easily have come from the east, as from west. I find the article tendentious and suspect. I don't deny that you contention is correct, but i see no evidence in the BBC article to assure that it is.

As for Europeans in North America, although there is some compelling inferential evidence for the Solutrian hypothesis, it is not an established fact and to say that the first inhabitants of North America were Europeans as though it were is intellectually irresponsible.
Ionus
 
  2  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 04:52 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
If Australia was settled by man 40,000 years ago, and as your BBC source claims, stone tools have been found in Brazil at sites which are 50,000 years old, then it cannot reasonably be claimed that South America was first settled by Australian Aborigines.
Of course it can. You are assuming the dates disqualify all other evidence, but those dates are based on similar evidence THAT HAS BEEN FOUND. Surely I do not have to explain the problems with such evidence ?

Quote:
they could as easily have come from the east, as from west.
Where is the evidence of Africans sailing west ? There is evidence of the Aboriginees sailing east. Perhaps you dont give full credit to skeletal evidence.
Quote:
As for Europeans in North America, although there is some compelling inferential evidence for the Solutrian hypothesis, it is not an established fact and to say that the first inhabitants of North America were Europeans as though it were is intellectually irresponsible.
So who do you think the anatomical features of these early people best represent ? The evidence has been studied but are you aware the evidence has been buried by Ameri-Indians ? Perhaps for political power...If everyone says maybe it is true then the evidence will continue to be destroyed.
You are already familar with the following but I include it for anyone following the debate :
0 Replies
 
panther246
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2011 03:14 pm
My former chiropractor is half chinese and half japanese. He told me that the Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese all originally came from China. He then told me we are definitely all closely related. I have noticed that many people seem to have hangups about being told there are races related to their own. Don't know why. Unless you actually look down on another race that may be related to your own, then it really should not bother you. I am not saying that Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans are all the same thing. I just don't see how they could not be related to one another.
0 Replies
 
sureis
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2011 12:41 am
readers have to understand the fact that Mongols and mongoloids are two different things. Mongoloid refers to the features or the structures of body in which one is built. for instance Caucasian(white), Aryan, Afro, Mongoloid. The latter one lived in Oriental Asia and spread worldwide.
0 Replies
 
KS1412
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2014 07:46 pm
@Setanta,
Kanji is completely identical to Traditional chinese. They clearly didn't just "borrow" the language. They incorporated it into their own customs and culture. In addition, the Japanese received much of their culture and traditions from China in the Song/Tang dynasties as well. In the 1st centuries A.D., the people of Japan imported a wide range of ideas, techniques of production, institutional models, and material objects from the Chinese mainland. After adapting these imports to make them compatible with the quite sophisticated culture they had previously developed, the Japanese used what they had borrowed from China to build a civilization of their own. I really don't understand why you would reference the Neolithic pottery reference. Each had objects and ideas that the latter learned from and absorbed. Korean, Chinese, and Japanese history were all very much connected, and you honestly can't generalize a specific ethnicity from such a large part of the Asian Continent . Not all Chinese are "Han". They just identify themselves that way. Japanese are in no way ethnically uniform as well. The Okinawans were very related to the Chinese, and most of Japan most likely descended from Korean/Manchurian Ancestors. In any case, please do not generalize East Asian Ethnicities. I'm actually a mix of Korean, Chinese, and Japanese. Raised in Japan, moved to Korea for college. I know hangul, japanese, and mandarin, and I understand where each of these nationalities gets their identities from. The barrier separating us is not as big as some people say it is.
As others have mentioned before, this is not a subject worth arguing over. I think some of the debates have kind of derailed themselves. Whether or not we are closely related makes no large difference, in the overall perspective. We're all people, and we need to appreciate each other rather than fight over petty historical details. (And before someone gets offended, this applies to myself as well).
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2014 12:32 am
@KS1412,
Rachel Tan mentioned kanji, not i. It seems to me that you want to dismiss the issue of pottery because it does not agree with your thesis. I brought up the matter of pottery to show that the Japanese did not simply borrow culture wholesale from the Chinese.

You have a lot to say on a subject which you also say is not worth arguing about. My point, which i see no reason to abandon, is that the Japanese and Koreans are ethnically distinct from the Chinese. Your ancestry is not an argument against that proposition. "Specific ethnicities" are exactly the point of this question. I'd say ask the author of the thread, but he appears to be long gone by now.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2014 09:43 am
How old-fashioned! How antique are your aguements, guys!

Why don't you think about using up-to-date technologies, e.g. genome comparison, to identify?

Here is one, a large genome-wide association study of East Asian populations:

Quote:
it was both found that the Japanese are closer to Han Chinese, but the Koreans are relatively far away from Han Chinese if compared to Japanese. This study also included Native Americans, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Europeans and Africans. It was also found in the same paper that, going by Identity By State (a more accurate indicator of genetic similarity and distance compared to Fixation Index[citation needed]) results, the Japanese are more related to the Vietnamese when compared to the Mongolians and Koreans. The Koreans and Mongolians were found to be the least genetically related to the Vietnamese. The Japanese were also more similar by IBS to the Mongolians than the Koreans were. However further studies need to be conducted to infer about relationships between the Jomon Japanese and their genetic relationships to other East Asian ethnic groups to better understand the origins of the Japanese people.

PLoS One. 2010 Jul 29;5(7):e11855. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011855.
Gene flow between the Korean peninsula and its neighboring countries.
Jung J1, Kang H, Cho YS, Oh JH, Ryu MH, Chung HW, Seo JS, Lee JE, Oh B, Bhak J, Kim HL.
Author information 1Syntekabio Inc., Seoul, Korea.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20686617

0 Replies
 
carloslebaron
 
  0  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2014 11:17 am
Ionus wrote

<<Certainly. It is always a pleasure to deal with polite people of an intellectual nature.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/430944.stm
and the first inhabitants of North America were white europeans. >>

When the Spaniards arrived to South America and reached the jungle area which is locates crossing the Andes, they saw tall white women bathing in the river.

They thought that these women were the legendary Amazons, who were the women warriors.

For this reason, the river and the area where the women were seen by the Spaniards is called the Amazonas.

So, we have "white people" living in the jungle of the ancient Peruvian territory before the arriving of the Spaniards. It is time to review the whole DNA studies, population distribution, ancestral origin, etc. because those white people (men, women and children) lived and still living in these areas and it appears lots of scientific dudes pretend to ignore them.
0 Replies
 
joannawood1245
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2017 03:43 am
@JGoldman10,
They are Asian
0 Replies
 
cameronleon
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2017 10:31 pm
From the bible, when talking of Japhet, the yellow race

The Japhethites
2 The sons of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshek and Tiras.
3 The sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah.
4 The sons of Javan: Elishah, Tarshish, the Kittites and the Rodanites.
5 (From these the maritime peoples spread out into their territories by their clans within their nations, each with its own language.)

Javan is Japan.

Tubal and Meshek are Tobolks and Moscow.

Kitites or Kittim , is China.



0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

learn chinese in shanghai - Question by evajjac
NEED HELP IN CHINESE CALLIGRAPHY - Question by farmerman
English to Chinese - Question by thubbard55
Ancient Chinese Firestarter - Question by alight15
Learn English or teach Chinese - Question by yanping
Help me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Question by lululucy
Chinese - Question by alana2096
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/20/2018 at 10:20:18