Category Archives: Northeast Asians

Transitional Mongoloid Races

Mike815 writes:

If Kennewick man is Australoid and also being Paleomongloid, are there ethnic groups that are being both neomongoloid and Paleomongoloid, and being both neomongoloid and Indonesian type?

Kennewick was Australoid-Paleomongoloid transitional. An Australoid type transitioning to Paleomongoloid.

Maybe Eskimos, Vietnamese, Thai, Lao, Hmong, Gilyak, Ainu, some Siberians would fall into that category. Those are sort of like Paleomongoloid-Neomongoloid transitional.

Eskimos, Chukchi, Yukaghir, Kamchadals, etc. are not really Paleomongoloids like Amerinds. They are more progressive. But they are not as advanced as true Neomongoloids.

Vietnamese are interesting. I now think most SE Asians are actually Paleomongoloids: Filipinos, Indonesians, Malays, Khmer, some of the tribes of the Indian Northeast, most particularly the Nagas. But Vietnamese and Thai/Lao are Neomongoloids. I just do not feel like they are a long ways down that road. The Vietnamese only transitioned to Neo 2,300 years via massive South Chinese infusion. There are also Paleomongoloids in Vietnam called Montagnards.

Thai/Lao are not even as progressive as the Vietnamese. Thai and Lao probably just transitioned to Neo maybe 900 years ago via massive South Chinese infusion. There are also some Paleos in Thailand such as the Akha.

Hmong are thought to be Neomongoloids, but a lot of them have somewhat archaic features, and they are rather backwards people. They could be transitional.

Yunnan Chinese: There are definitely some quite archaic Mongoloids running around up in Yunnan. Probably most folks are Neomongoloids of the South Chinese type, but I have seen some Paleomongoloids up there and some people who look transitional.

Ainu are Australoids by skull, Neomongoloid by genes. And by now heavily married in with Neomongoloid Japanese, so consider them transitionals.

Gilyaks are at least as archaic as the Ainu, but I have never seen any skull data. I know that some say that the Gilyak are the remains of the proto-Northeast Asians who developed around Lake Baikal 35,000 years ago. They do not look particulalry striking. They simply look something like Japanese people.

Some of the lower Siberian types seem to be Neomongoloid. The Evenki, Yakut and Tuva look quite progressive.

There seem to be some Siberians who look like dead ringers for the Amerinds, including the Altai and much later Ket and probably Orochen/Ulchi stock from which the Amerinds are theorized to have come. The Orochen, Ulchi, Even, etc. look quite Neomongoloid. Whether these are true Paleomongoloids or whether they are transitionals, I am not sure. At this point, many of them, especially the Altai, Shor, Khakas, Os, etc. are heavily admixed with Caucasian.

Further west, the Mansi and Khanty types are nearly mongoloid-Caucasoid transitional of a very interesting type – a rather archaic Siberian Mongoloid of either the Paleo or Paleo-Neo transitional type mixed about 50-50 with Russian East Slavic very blond and blue depigmented ultra-Whites. Some of the photos of the Mansi and Khanty will make you fall out of your chair.



Filed under Ainu, Amerindians, Anthropology, Asians, Chinese (Ethnic), Chuckchi, Filipinos, Hmong, Indonesians, Inuit, Japanese, Lao, Malays, Northeast Asians, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, SE Asians, Siberians, Thai, Vietnamese

In What Order Did the Human Races Split Off?

Peabody writes:

Would you agree with Cavalli-Sforza’s gene map that SE Asians diverged from NE Asians before Caucasoids did?

Yes I absolutely believe that.

  • First split: Africans
  • Second split: Australoids (Ancient Asians)
  • Third split: SE Asians
  • Fourth split: Caucasians
  • Fifth split: Khoisans
  • Sixth split: Pygmies
  • Seventh split: NE Asians
  • Eighth split: Papuans/Aborigines
  • Ninth split: Horners
  • Tenth split: Arctic/Eskimos
  • Eleventh split: Pacific/SE Asian Islanders
  • Twelfth split: South Indians
Cavalli-Sforza's gene map.

Cavalli-Sforza’s gene map.

Here is the map being referred to above.


Filed under Anthropology, Asians, Northeast Asians, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, SE Asians

Are the Possible Human Phenotypes a Closed and Limited Set?

Gulliver Frederick asks:

Could you elaborate Robert on what “White genes” are and why people believe it’s recessive? Can you give an elaboration of how this gene thing works and the proof of it?

Also would the “White phenotype” re-appear again if given the exact same pressures and evolutionary circumstances?

I am not sure myself what White genes are to be honest. I do not know genetics very well. I am also not sure if Whiteness is recessive. This is something the Black nationalists and White nationalists both harp on about, but I am not sure it is true and the only people saying it are insane people.

Yes I really do think that the White phenotype would occur again under all sorts of pressures and evolutionary circumstances.

I truly believe that the possible human phenotypes is a closed and not very large set. There are only a fairly small and closed set of potential phenotypes that may unfold in any human race, and I feel that “Caucasoid” is one of them.

As an example, a cross between archaic East Asian and Neomongoloid often produces a fake “Caucasoid” phenotype. This can be seen in Taiwan aborigines, some Amerindians of North America, the Ainu, some Khmers, and some Polynesians. Also some Papuan phenotypes appear “Caucasoid” which is odd. There are even some Blacks from South Sudan, northern Kenya, Rwanda and Burundi who appear somewhat “Caucasoid.” Studies have shown that these Blacks are 100% Black with no Caucasoid admixture.


Filed under Ainu, Amerindians, Anthropology, Asians, Blacks, Genetics, Khmer, Northeast Asians, Oceanians, Papuans, Physical, Polynesians, Race/Ethnicity, SE Asians, Taiwanese Aborigines, Whites

Are Filipinos and Indonesians Archaic Asians?

Anthropology1994 writes:

So are Filipinos and Indonesians not archaic?

We usually do not think of them that way. Most Filipinos are not archaic but some people who live in the Philippines are archaic. For instance, Negritos are obviously archaic. I believe the Igorots may be archaic. They resemble Taiwan aborigines and a number of them look almost Caucasian. There are also primitive Filipino groups such as the Mangyans, but I am not sure how archaic they are.

There are out of and out Australoids in the far east of Indonesia. These are Melanesians with about 20% Taiwan aborigine mix, somewhat like coastal New Guinea people except these Melanesians have more Chinese in them.

I would say that the Sea Dayaks of Borneo are archaic.

So the Igorots of the Philippines and the Sea Dayaks of Indonesia at least appear to be archaic Paleomongoloids.

The Filipinos and Indonesians themselves are fairly modern creations mostly via repeated infusions of Taiwan aborigines, mostly the Ami, who came by boats. These migrations happened over 3,000 years in the Philippines with the last one being ~2,000 YBP. The movement into Indonesia was about 2-3,000 YBP.

They moved along the north coast of Indonesia on their way to coastal New Guinea where they bred in with Papuans and became the Coastal New Guinea people, who are different from the Papuan Highlanders. They then went to Polynesia and Micronesia but apparently not Melanesia. The Polynesians are 50% Melanesian and 50% Taiwan aborigine and I think the Micronesians are 50% Polynesian and 50% Taiwan aborigine, so they are 25% Melanesian.

I suppose we could call Polynesians and Micronesians Paleomongoloids, but most people don’t seem want to do that for some reason. For instance, Moiriori skulls line up very well with the Ainu and the very archaic Paleomongoloid Kennewick Man in the Americas, so groups like the Maori are obviously archaic

These Taiwan aborigines who left Taiwan were the Lapita people, the greatest mariners that ever lived.

The base for Indonesians which makes up 80% of the genome is a mysterious group called Proto-Dai. The Dai are a people who live in Yunnan in Southern China. Their ancestors apparently migrated to Indonesia during a glacial period involving flooding and they have gotten stuck out there due to flooding of land bridges. The Proto-Dai were probably a Melanesian type, Australoids.

However these proto-Dai have been evolving in Indonesia for 15,000 years. During the same period in Vietnam, Melanesian types have been slowly transitioning to Neomongoloids. In Vietnam the process was completed 2,300 YBP, a date which coincides with a massive invasion of Vietnam by Southern Chinese which seems to have resulted in a massive infusion of Chinese blood. In other words, the Vietnamese transition to Neomongoloid 2,300 YBP was caused by a massive infusion of Southern Chinese stock. Vietnamese are very new Neomongoloids and I believe they still have Australoid residual features.

A principal component of the Filipinos representing the maternal genome goes back up to 30,000 YBP and may represent the Negrito people or something other Australoid type. There were other peoples that moved into the Filipinos down through the years, including a group that looks like Ainuids. Proto-Ainuids were in Thailand 16,000 YBP, and they went, apparently by boat, to Japan by 13,000 YBP where they become the Jomon people. It stands to reason that they might have stopped by the Philippines along the way.

While the maternal Filipino stock is ancient Asian Negrito or Melanesian type, the male line consists mostly of Taiwan aborigines, mostly the Ami tribe, who came in waves over the last 5,000 years. The Ami lived on the coast of Taiwan and were expert boat-builders, and it is thought that they are the Austronesian people who populated much of Island SE Asia and Oceania. Filipinos also have a fair amount of modern Chinese who have come in in the last 800 years. Many of these were Taiwanese Hoklo or South Chinese from Hong Kong and the Guangdong region.


Filed under Ainu, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, China, Chinese (Ethnic), Filipinos, Indonesia, Indonesians, Maori, Melanesians, Micronesia, Micronesians, Negritos, Northeast Asians, Oceanians, Pacific, Papua New Guinea, Papuans, Philippines, Physical, Polynesia, Polynesians, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asians, Taiwan, Taiwanese Aborigines, Thailand, Vietnam, Vietnamese

The Proto-Mongoloids and the Birth of the Asian Race

This post from 15 months ago is getting posted around to forums where people are discussing it, mostly positive. If you are interested in the races of Asia and especially the historical development of the various races, you should find this interesting.

A commenter says:

Robert, if people like Abe Hiroshi can have that appearance without having any Caucasian DNA at all, then you shouldn’t call their appearance “Caucasian looking”, it sounds extremely Eurocentric and misleading from a genetic standpoint.

Also, genetics has shows that Paleo-Mongoloids and Australoids are not the same thing. Otherwise, the Ainu would be much genetically closer to Australian Aborigines than to Modern East Asians (which they aren’t). Instead, they are actually closest to Native Americans, Native Taiwanese and other groups that have maintained their Proto-Mongoloid features.

The Mongoloid race as a whole is much older than you say it is, Robert. It was 41,000 years ago when their split from Caucasians happened and about 11,000 years ago when the Neo-Mongoloid (aka classic East Asian) phenotype first appeared. The Japanese in particular are about 85% Neo-Mongoloid (Yayoi) & 15% Proto-Mongoloid (Jomon).

Also, DNA studies have shown that the Hmong people don’t have any Caucasian ancestry at all. Traits like light hair & eye colors actually originated in Central Asia (where the Mongoloid race began) and only later spread to Europe due to natural selection. This is why Genghis Khan, who was proven to be 100% Mongoloid, had red hair & green eyes, why many Koreans & Japanese are born with brown hair, and why many contemporary Mongolians (who range 83%- 100% Mongoloid) Kazakhs (61%-85% Mongoloid) and related groups have a wide range of hair and eye colors.

Finally, little Australoid (and no Caucasian) ancestry exist in Malays & Indonesians. Both groups are about 80%-90% Mongoloid.

The skulls at the huge dig in north China from 9,000 YBP appear Australoid (Ainuid). The general consensus is that the Mongoloid race only goes back 9,000 years. Before that, all Asians look Australoid on skulls. In the north, they looked Ainuid or maybe Polynesian. In the south, they looked Negrito or better yet, Melanesian. Ainuids are Australoid on skulls, not genes. That is the way I split people. Genes are misleading. Filipino Negritos look like Filipinos on genes. Thai Negritos look Thai on genes. This is misleading.

Splitting on skulls give us much better races. We get Tamils of India, the Senoi and Mansi and Semang Negritos of Thailand and Malaysia, the Philippine Negritos, the Ainu, the Paleoamerinds, the Baja California and Tierra del Fuego Amerinds in addition to the Melanesians, the Papuans and the Aborigines all in one group called Australoids. Polynesians are trickier.

If you only go by genes, you have throw everyone, even the Melanesians, everyone but the Papuans and Aborigines, out of Australoids and retain only Papuans and Aborigines in Australoid. This gives us an imperfect view of the Australoid race. I would rather split on skulls. Are the Ati really Filipinos? Are the Semang really Malays? Are the Mansi really Thais? It doesn’t seem right.

On skulls, both Malays and Indonesians are part Australoid. Malay skulls show signs of having recently derived from the Semang and the Senoi. In fact, they call the Semang “our ancestors.” Indonesians are only 20% Taiwanese Aborigine or Paleomongoloid – that is the Mongoloid in them. The other 80% comes from proto-Dai from Yunnan, China who moved down into the area in large numbers when there was a lot flooding 10-20,000 YBP. Proto-Dai were a an Australoid (Melanesian) group. Malays and Indonesians are transitioning from Australoid to Neomongoloid, but they have not completed the transition yet and they retain many Australoid features.

Sure, the Asian race is very old. The genesis of the Asian race was in Northern Vietnam 53,000 YBP. But 53,000 YBP, those proto-Asians in North Vietnam did not look like Mongoloids. Instead, they probably looked like the Semang and Mani (Negrito).

Caucasoids were never a part of the Asian race; instead, Caucasoids are derived from mixing 2/3 Proto-Mongoloid (possibly Ainuid) with 1/3 Paleo-African (possibly Khoisanid).

You say Eurocentric like it’s a bad thing. I am a White man, and I am proudly Eurocentric. I love my great White people and most of my Caucasoid brothers too.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.


Filed under Aborigines, Ainu, Amerindians, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, China, East Indians, Filipinos, Genetics, Indonesians, Malays, Melanesians, Negritos, Northeast Asians, Oceanians, Papuans, Physical, Polynesians, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asians, Semang, South Asians, Taiwanese Aborigines, Vietnam

Lies and Nonsense about Asian Racial Types

donaldwaggoner32, who was immediately banned, writes:

Caucasoids are known in Asia in the Upper Paleolithic (Upper Cave 101 found at Zhoukoudkien in association with Aurignacian blades) as well as at Malta-Buret, which has been genetically linked to both Upper Paleolithic Europeans, Native Americans and Northwestern Europeans. Native American skulls are Caucasoid not “Paleomongoloid”.

Your analysis also fails to take in to account elevated levels of Neanderthal DNA in east Asians and especially Native Americans, as well as low Denisovan DNA compared to the higher levels found in Australoids; no one believes Mongoloids evolved out of Australoids.

Every single thing Waggoner writes is wrong or irrelevant.

I will go through this one by one.

Caucasoids are known in Asia in the Upper Paleolithic (Upper Cave 101 found at Zhoukoudkien in association with Aurignacian blades)

My understanding is that the skulls at Upper Cave 101 found at Zhoukoudkien pre-9000 YBP were Australoid. They are said to look like Aborigines.

no one believes Mongoloids evolved out of Australoids.

The basic Asiatic type is Australoid. Australoids were the first to populate the entire continent of Asia. Australoids certainly transitioned into Mongoloids in SE Asia, the Philippines and Taiwan.

The Ainu are the most ancient NE Asians of all, and their skulls are Australoid. Ainuids were in Thailand 21,000 YBP and in Japan 14,000 YBP. Ainuids are Australoids. It does indeed appear that the basic Asiatic type is Australoid. Surely, Australoids went to Mongoloid in SE Asia, Malaysia, Taiwan and the Philippines and probably in China. Southern Chinese skulls from 15,000 YBP look like Melanesians.

This man says “no one believes Mongoloids came out of Australoids.” He is wrong again. Actually the best anthropologists on Earth believe that Mongoloids came from Australoids. Vietnam’s finest anthropologist says on his webpage that Vietnamese and all SE Asian Mongoloids evolved from Australoids or Melanesians over 21,000 years. I will take his opinion over some Internet hack any day.

Caucasoids are known in Asia in the Upper Paleolithic (Upper Cave 101 found at Zhoukoudkien in association with Aurignacian blades) as well as at Malta-Buret.

I do not believe there are any Caucasoid skulls at Upper Cave 101 in Zhoukoudkien. I know nothing of Malta-Buret, but I have never heard of any ancient Caucasoid skulls in Asia.

Caucasoids are known in Asia in the Upper Paleolithic (Upper Cave 101 found at Zhoukoudkien in association with Aurignacian blades) as well as at Malta-Buret, which has been genetically linked to both Upper Paleolithic Europeans, Native Americans and Northwestern Europeans.

I am not certain what all this genetics is getting up to. Apparently Australoid Aborigine-type Zhoukoudkien Cave 101 skulls line up genetically with Paleomongoloid Amerindians and Paleomongoloid Upper Paleolithic Europeans? So we have two Paleomongoloid skulls lining up with one Australoid skull. This relates to Caucasoids how? Of what possible relevance is this? You mean back when Chinese people looked like Aborigines and European people looked like Amerindians they were genetically related?

The European or Caucasoid race as we know it is new. It has only been around for 15,000 years. Prior to that, Caucasoids looked like Paleomongoloids.

Upper Paleolithic European skulls from 22,000 YBP look more like skulls of the Makah Indians of the Pacific Northwest than anything else. Makah Indians are Paleomongoloids. So 22,000 YBP, “European Caucasians” looked like Paleomongoloid Amerindians.

Native American skulls are Caucasoid not “Paleomongoloid”.

Native American skulls do not look Caucasoid at all. Actually, their skulls are Mongoloid. Not one valid anthropologist on this planet says that Amerindians are Caucasoids. There is no need to put Paleomongoloid in quotes as it is a good description for types such as Ainuids, Amerindians and Taiwanese aborigines and possibly others.

Your analysis also fails to take in to account elevated levels of Neanderthal DNA in east Asians and especially Native Americans, as well as low Denisovan DNA compared to the higher levels found in Australoids.

I am not sure how Neandertal and Denisovan DNA is relevant to this discussion.


Filed under Ainu, Amerindians, Anthropology, Asians, Chinese (Ethnic), Europeans, Melanesians, Northeast Asians, Oceanians, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, SE Asians, Vietnamese

Organized Versus Unorganized Violence

Jason Y writes:

A lot of Asians would do the same to white people, if it were legal. You can’t imagine all the hateful comments, many about Bin Laden, from Asians who didn’t even know me……Here’s another thought: Blacks kill in person, but many races use war and terrorism. Either way, they want death…

…A lot of Asians would do the same to white people, if it were legal. You can’t imagine all the hateful comments, many about Bin Laden, from Asians who didn’t even know me…

…Here’s another thought: Blacks kill in person, but many races use war and terrorism. Either way, they want death…

…Do Europeans love white people, or especially Americans? What would some 20 year old something soccer fan do to an American, if it were legal??

The problem here is who would you rather live with, Japanese and Germans or Blacks? Say you could live in a city full of Japanese people, a city full of German people, or a city full of Blacks. Which one would you rather live in?

Yes indeed, German and Japanese people committed an incredible amount of organized violence recently, some of the worst in history. Now whether that makes them inferior or not is up for grabs. But they commit almost no unorganized violence.

Now Blacks commit a lot of unorganized violence and not necessarily so much organized violence. However, their restraint was probably due more to lack of modern weaponry than anything else. In the last 45 years, Blacks have committed a lot of organized violence in Africa.

Biafra 1970: 2 million killed.

Sudanese Civil War 1956-2012: 1.5 million killed.

Rwanda Genocide 1993: 1.2 million

Congo Civil War 1995-present: 3 million killed.

So as you can see, once you give Black people modern weaponry, they can commit quite a bit of organized violence themselves.

Now I could go live in a 100% Japanese city in Japan. Sure, the Japanese committed horrific organized violence in WW2. So in living with them I would be living with a group that is known for horrifying levels of organized violence. But the thing is that they have done no organized violence since. I could go live there, and I could look out at the city and think, these people could rise up and their organized violence thing again and kill millions of people and they might kill me. But I would just assume that they are not going to do that as they haven’t in 70 years.

Same thing if I go and live in a German city. The Germans probably committed worse organized violence than the Japanese. Now I could go live in Germany in a city full of 100% Germans. Now Germans are some scary people. They are capable of quite a bit of bad stuff. And they could rise up again in another of their spasms of organized violence just like 70 years ago. But I would just assume that they are not going to do that, and I would just live in Germany and take my chances with their record of organized violence.

Another thing about organized violence is that you can often get out of the way of it. You can see it coming. If I lived in Germany or Japan, I would have ample warning at the slow rise of fascism and militarism, and I would have a lot of time, probably years, to get out of the way of it.

Now I could go live in Detroit, Camden or Baltimore, all Black cities. The unorganized violence is so chronic and at such a a high level that I would live in a constant state of fear. I would be much more likely to be victimized by bad people living in that Black city than living in that German or Japanese city.

So an ethnicity’s record of Organized Violence is not very relevant. What is relevant to any one human is, “Will I be victimized or harmed by bad people.” On that score, Disorganized Violence is much more of a menace to the average person.


Filed under Asians, Blacks, Crime, Europeans, Germans, Japanese, Northeast Asians, Race/Ethnicity, Sociology, Urban Decay, USA, War

Some Thoughts on Western Whites and the Modern Antiracist Movement

Jason writes:

Northeast Asians have a high IQ and are incredibly racist, with a tendency toward child-like tribalism (mob mentality).

Racism means hating other groups. That is the only meaning of the term that makes any sense.

The commenter is correct that NE Asians are very primitive that way. That is why I really do think that Asians are a lower race. Whites are the most antiracist race on Earth, so that is why we are better. We tend to be above that sort of thing, and we are more likely than any other race to think it is immoral. The whole theory of antiracism came from White people. The only serious antiracist movements in the world are run by Whites and are mostly Whites chastising other Whites for their racism.

Most of the other groups are not involved in antiracism. Arabs have no use for it. There is no antiracist movement in Black Africa, nor in North Africa. There is none in Central Asia. At least in Afghanistan and Iran, people are wildly bigoted. As commenters have noted on this site, Northeast Asians are unbelievably, unashamedly racist. I know little about Southeast Asians. Obviously people in the Indian subcontinent are so racist that they are off the charts. I have no idea how racist Pacific Islanders, Filipinos, Papuans, and Aborigines are, however, Indonesians are insanely racist towards the Papuans in Western New Guinea (Irian Jaya). They treat them almost as if they are a subhumans who are not even fully Homo sapiens. Also I have heard that Hawaiians are unbelievably racist towards Whites.

I have little knowledge of racism in the Americas. However, in the US, Hispanics are dramatically more racist towards Blacks than White people are. In Peru and Chile, there is outrageous racism towards Indians. I cannot speak to the rest of the Americas.

However, the Whites in the Americas and Africa are a lot more primitive and backwards than Western Whites. They show their baseness by the extreme racism we see in Latin American Whites. These Whites simply have not gotten on board the antiracist train.

The White South Africans were also a very backwards and primitive group of Whites and they still are.

I will also say that Russians are a very backwards and primitive type of Whites. They are not as advanced as Westerners. We see this in the fact that racism against non-Whites is extremely common in Russia.

There are no antiracist movements of any note in the Arab World, Turkey, the Near East, North Africa, Iran and Afghanistan, Northeast Asia, Indonesia, Latin America (though there is one in Brazil and Cuba). There is an anti-bigotry movement in India against casteism and it has been going on for 65 years now with almost no success.

Racism is pretty much the norm in primitive or less advanced tribal groups because it is simply tribalism. Only Western Whites have been advanced enough to attempt to move beyond racism, and they have only done so in the 20th Century. By any metric, Western Whites are probably some of the least racist people on Earth.

The problem with the modern antiracist movements is that it is mostly White people screaming at other White people to stop being racist. I do not necessarily oppose that, but please note that no other race is moral enough to chastise themselves in this way.

One of the problems with this movement is that modern White antiracism is utterly silent on the racism of non-Whites even though they are vastly more racist than White people.

Also this movement states as its founding principle that the whole problem on Earth is White people and their racism. This is a lie. White racism is not the biggest problem on Earth. How could it be when Whites are the least racist group of humans? So the movement is irrational at its core.

In the West, many non-Whites have joined this movement that White people set up. Their role in this movement is to scream and carry on about the racism of White people. Once again, I do not mind on principle as I think we Whites can always do better. But these antiracist nonwhites are irrational because they think the world’s biggest problem is the racism of the least racist people on Earth. Also Western non-White antiracists are utterly silent on the racism of their own kind and other non-Whites. This is irrational because these groups are all more racist than Whites.

Most other races apparently don’t even think racism is wrong.


Filed under Afghanistan, Americas, Anti-Racism, Arabs, Asia, Asians, Blacks, Civil Rights, Europeans, Hispanics, India, Iran, Latin America, Near East, Northeast Asians, Oceanians, Papuans, Race Realism, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Russians, SE Asians, South Africa, South Asia, Whites

Is Dravidian Related to Japanese?

Thirdeye writes:

The Tamil-Japonic connection isn’t quite as off the wall as one might think at first glance. There’s apparently a strong Andaman-Indonesian language connection. The convention of repeat plurals seems to have found its way to Japan. There’s also some similarity between the Finno-Ugric languages, which are Uralic outliers in a sea of Indo-European languages, and Dravidian languages that have a remnant in Pakistan. Contact between proto-Dravidian-Uralic and Altaic languages is a real possibility.

If Uralic is close to anything, it is close to Altaic and Indo-European and probably even closer to Chukto-Kamchatkan, Eskimo-Aleut, Yukaghir and Nivkhi. Yukaghir may actually be Uralic itself, or maybe the family is called “Uralic-Yukaghir.”

There is no connection between Austronesian (Indonesian) and the Andaman Islanders. Austronesian is indeed related to Thai though (Austro-Tai); in my opinion, this has been proven. If the Andaman languages are related to anything at all, they may be related to some Papuan languages and an isolate in Nepal called Nihali. A good case can be made connecting Nihali with some of the Papuan languages.

Typology is not that great of way to classify. Typology is areal and it spreads via convergence. What you are looking in search genetic relationship among languages more more than anything else is morphology. After that, a nice set of cognates.

There is probably no connection between Dravidian and Uralic in particular. Dravidian is outside of most everything in Eurasia. It if is close to anything, it might be close to Afro-Asiatic. There also looks to be a connection with Elamite.

Dravidian and Afro-Asiatic are probably older than the rest of the Eurasian languages, and they were located further to the south. Afro-Asiatic is very old, probably ~15,000 YBP.


Filed under Afroasiatic, Altaic, Andaman Islanders, Austro-Tai, Austronesian, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Comparitive, Dravidian, Eskimo-Aleut, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Isolates, Japanese, Japonic, Language Classification, Language Families, Linguistics, Negritos, Paleosiberian, Race/Ethnicity, SE Asians, Tamil, Thai

What Is the Origin of the Japanese Language?

A friend of mine, Jared Taylor from American Renaissance, asks:

I have heard that Japanese is supposed to be a member of the Finno-Ugric family, but I don’t see how it could be. People tell me that Japanese grammar is close to Korean grammar, but i don’t hear of Koreans as part of the F-U family.

Do you have any idea where Japanese (and Korean) came from? The Japanese copied the Chinese characters, but their language and grammar are completely different. What gives?

The R-U family of languages. Ok, that’s pretty funny! My response:

Technically it is an isolate, and Korean is too. Actually, Japanese is not really an isolate as it is a member of a family called Japonic, which consists of Japanese and the Okinawan languages. But the Japonic family is not thought to be related to any other languages or language families.
I do not agree that Japanese (Japonic) or Korean are isolates. My opinion is that Japanese is a member of a family called “Altaic,” a postulated but unproven family consisting of:

Turkic (Turkish and related tongues)

Mongolic (Mongolian and related tongues)

Tungusic (languages of far eastern Siberia)



The position of Ainu is quite uncertain.

Finno-Ugric is part of a larger family called Uralic consisting of Finno-Ugric, Samoyedic and some related tongues. The position of Yukagir is uncertain. Uralic itself is a somewhat controversial family, but ultimately I think it is a valid taxon. People have held for a long time that Uralic and Altaic are related, and I think there is something to it, but first of all we need to prove Altaic!

Korean consists of maybe 70% Chinese borrowings and if I am not mistaken, Japanese has quite a few Chinese borrowings also.

The Yayoi people who make up the current Japanese stock came down from Korea about 2,300 YBP, conquering, interbreeding with and replacing the Ainu people who inhabited the island. Modern Japanese are now a mixture of the Yayoi, the Ainu and to some extent Ryukuyans (Okinawans). Both the Ainu and the Ryukuyans are pretty archaic types, more or less Paleo-Asians or Archaic Northeast Asians. The Ainu are actually classed in the Australoid race, believe it or not.

Taylor then disputed that the Ainu were Australids.

The truth is that Ainu genes are Asian, but Ainu skulls look like Negrito, Papuan, Aborigine, Tamil, Senoi, Melanesian and Paleoamerindian skulls. This makes sense as prior to 9,000 YBP, Australid types were generalized across all of Asia. There is a large dig in north China. All remains older than 9,000 YBP look like Aborigines (Australoids). The modern Mongoloid race only appears at this site 9,000 YBP. As the Ainu are the ultimate Paleoasians, it would naturally follow that they have an Australid phenotype.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. This is my only job.


Filed under Ainu, Altaic, Anthropology, Asians, Chinese language, Finno-Ugric Languages, Isolates, Japanese, Japanese, Japonic, Korean language, Language Families, Linguistics, Northeast Asians, Physical, Race/Ethnicity