The truth about East Asians....

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

I say it's impossible to tell via physical characteristics alone. For it to be possible the differences would have to be constant. For it to be possible, the various nationalities in the region would have to be defined along these physical characteristics

And yes I took the test, I failed.

It's not constant, but there are "tendancies". That's why I got 13 out of 18. Was that just luck?

[noodle]

Originally Posted by MMM

It's not constant, but there are "tendancies". That's why I got 13 out of 18. Was that just luck?

i got 15/18, but i have to admit that about 5 of them i was totally baffled and i randomly chose. Where as the other 3 that were wrong, i was certain that they were the ethnicity that i chose...

[MMM]

Originally Posted by noodle

i got 15/18, but i have to admit that about 5 of them i was totally baffled and i randomly chose. Where as the other 3 that were wrong, i was certain that they were the ethnicity that i chose...

I had the same experience. A couple I got wrong I was sure I was right, while another couple I had no idea...

[noodle]

Originally Posted by MMM

I had the same experience. A couple I got wrong I was sure I was right, while another couple I had no idea...

Yeah, so personally, I'd say I have a slight idea of ethnic group, but sometimes I can't tell...

EDIT: Is it me, or do korean women generally not have the same hair as chinese/japanese. I find that usually I am able to recognise a Korean woman by their frizzy/curley hair rather than the dead straite hair usually common with japanese/chinese!

[Ronin4hire]

Fair enough... that there MIGHT be tendencies is a possibility. In the same way that there is a larger percentage of blondes in Sweden, there may be certain characteristics that are more common in say Japan than Korea and vice versa.

I can't see it though....

(This message is a reply to MMM's last post)

[ryochonan1]

I am white, and I thought I was good at picking out which type of asian a person was for a long time, but it turned out I was proved wrong by one of my asian friends.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by anrakushi

here is a reason why Japanese are racially different to Chinese, taken from wiki page on Japanese people:



for reference the Jōmon people are believed to have crossed into Japan 30,000 years ago and the Yayoi people 2300-2400 years ago. having this mix of indigenous blood would give them unique characteristics that developed by the population of Japan.

i'm sure you can find a lot of information to back up they are a different race.

EDIT: forgot to add, there are indigenous groups in Japan as well, Ainu, Ryukyuans etc. i can't understand why you could think Han Chinese and Japanese are the same race.

Like I said before.. I'm NOT talking about race but nationality. Not only do I think race is irrelevant in this thread, it is also largely irrelevant in most fields of study (apart from medicine in which they really only use it for convenience. It doesn't even really exist scientifically speaking, rather it's more a social construct, The only reason I refer to it is because we are talking about physical features and in that case, reference to race on my part is simply done out of convenience.. however enough about that)

Also do you think that after all these years since the yayoi and Jomon people moved to the isles of Japan, that they are the ONLY influence into Japan. Do you think the "Japanese race" is still "pure"? Are you going to tell a "non-Japanese" looking person that they are not really Japanese? Similarly are you going to tell a blonde haired blue eyed English person that they are not really English? Or a red haired Swede that they are not really Swedish? Can you see how race is really not relevant in my assertion? On another note can you see the flaw in racial theory?

Anyway... this thread is starting to frustrate me. As you can see there are so many assumptions about the relationship between nations and nationalism and the social construct of race that I consider flawed by many of you, that my posts can be read many different ways depending on what flawed assumptions you have. Let me put it out there now. NO perceived "race" is pure. NO race percieved race is unchanged or unchanging.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

When an isolated group of people have been breeding down the same line for long enough without crossing country borders or regional areas, they develop traits, even if they were the same race to begin with. It is the slow process of evolution, and is how all races were formed. Black and white skin is just different traits from seperate breeding lines, and so on... Chinese, Japanese and Koreans have only been seperate for a short while, but they are already showing characteristics, I think.

I agree with this.

Koreans, Japanese, Chinese...in my experience identify themselves as "races" over "nationalities". All have had extended periods of a certain degree of isolation. There is no science in talking about nationality, but there can be when we see isolated gene-pools in the study of a race.

Yes. No race is "pure".

But I bet if you took an isolated Namibian tribe and a bunch of Japanese you'd have no problem identifying which was Namibian and which was Japanese. 100%.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by MMM

I agree with this.

Koreans, Japanese, Chinese...in my experience identify themselves as "races" over "nationalities". All have had extended periods of a certain degree of isolation. There is no science in talking about nationality, but there can be when we see isolated gene-pools in the study of a race.

Yes. No race is "pure".

But I bet if you took an isolated Namibian tribe and a bunch of Japanese you'd have no problem identifying which was Namibian and which was Japanese. 100%.

What do you mean there is no science when talking about nationality? A nation is defined as a self-aware group of people that share a common, imagined identity with political aspirations of self government.

My friend claims that he can tell them apart and you're agreeing with him. THAT is what we are discussing. I'd say THAT is what is unscientific.

Your assertion is that Japanese, Chinese, Korean are in fact not nationalities but seperate and distinct races? Really? You have proof to show that these nationalities are divided along racial lines? I mean Japan China and Korea share the same geographic region. The difference between climate and diet between the countries isn't great either. I don't know how you can say with certainty that they are seperate races. You've even admitted yourself that in that test you did, you got some wrong. If the test was between Nigerians and Japanese I'm sure you wouldn't get ANY wrong.

[anrakushi]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

Like I said before.. I'm NOT talking about race but nationality.

maybe so but you made this comment earlier.

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

However you will have to prove that the people of this region are in general, seperated into nations along the lines of physical characteristics (i.e. race. basically you'll have to prove that the Chinese are a seperate race from the Japanese from the Koreans). I believe they are not seperated by race, rather by culture.

this is why i replied with an example of how japanese are a seperate race. i never said it was pure but it is a seperate race. i love how you keep forgetting what you are saying yourself and have a go at the people here trying to respond to your topic.