Anthropology 1994 writes:
If Chinese are equivalent to Americans and Koreans to Nordics, which European or Caucasian type will the Japanese and Vietnamese be equivalent to?
Not sure, Japanese and Koreans are pretty much identical. I am not sure what to do with Vietnamese.
Those types of comparisons between Mongoloids and Caucasoids are very difficult and maybe impossible to do – the groups are just too different and they have very different histories.
If you are asking what an archaic protoform or paleo transition form of Caucasians may look like, maybe they are similar to South Indians.
Thing is, we can see a lot of the transition in Asia. There are still many Australoid proto-Asians (Melanesians, Papuans, Aborigines, Ainu, Senoi, Negritos, Tamils) and there are also many Neomongoloid Neoasians (Chinese, Japanese, Mongolians, Koreans, Vietnamese). In between we have the Paleomongoloid Paleoasians in transition (Polynesians, Micronesians, Thais, Lao, Khmer, Malays, Indonesians, Filipinos, Taiwan aborigines, Nagas).
For Caucasoids we simply have Caucasoids. Not many people make a distinction between Neocaucasians, Paleocaucasians and Protocaucasians because hardly anyone knows what the Paleos and Protos look like. We are probably not even sure what a Paleocaucasian looks like, but the South Indians and the Saami may be a good example. We are lost when it comes to Protocaucasians. In other words, for Caucasians, we mostly just have the fully transitioned form in Europeans, Near Easterners, Central Asians and even in Arabs and North Africans. All of these are pretty much fully transitioned Caucasians. But no one really knows that they transitioned from or what the transitioning forms looked like.
Asia looks a lot more in flux. The world of the Caucasians looks like a done deal.