Category Archives: Hmong

Primitive People Are Smarter Than You Think

We have a very primitive but wise group of Asians living amongst us around here called Hmong. This is a Chinese minority group that has moved down into Laos in the last 300 years. They did not even have a written language until the 1950’s and they have always lived quite a primitive life in the jungles.

Nevertheless, they are quite wise. I read an ethnography on them one time. It said that the Hmong believe that women who get pregnant before 19-20 are more likely to have problems in childbirth. The people who figured this out had no knowledge of modern medicine. But we now know that females continue to develop until age ~18-19. Pregnancies before this age are more problematic because the female’s hips are not wide enough to carry a baby yet. The final widening of the hips sufficient to carry a baby does not occur until age ~19.

You will notice this if you see 16-18 year old girls with killer curves and skinny bodies. They look incredibly hot but their bodies are not natural. It’s not normal to be skinny and curvy. You want curves, you got a bigger woman. You want thin, you get a stick. These girls look this way because the body in a formal sense is fully developed by age 16 in the sense of sex drive, full breast and pubic hair development, menarche and the full curvy body shape with narrow stomach, wider hips and a projecting butt is present by age 16.

Except for one thing. The hips have not yet widened to full adult proportions. So the 16-18 year old girl look is not natural or normal. It is a phase of incomplete development and makes little sense biologically. Since it is not biologically correct, there are increased pregnancy issues at this age range.

When I learned that the Hmong have a traditional belief that females should not get pregnant until 19-20, I was stunned. These humans had learned this via trial and error over the centuries. They didn’t need modern medicine to tell them the facts. They figured them out on their own.

Similarly, the Hmong have a traditional belief that one cannot learn a new language after age 40. This has been a problem in my area because non-English speaking Hmong in this age group simply refuse to enroll in English classes and so never learn to speak English much at all. The men often pick up a bit of English anyway because they are often working, but the women tend to stay at home, so older Hmong women are often Hmong monolinguals.

I told my mother of this Hmong belief and she said, “Aha! See? They figured that out on their own. And they are probably right. By age 40, it will be awfully hard to pick up a new language.” And studies in formal linguistics are showing this to be true.

23 Comments

Filed under Anthropology, Applied, Asians, Biology, Cultural, Girls, Health, Hmong, Hmong, Hmong-Mien, Language Families, Language Learning, Linguistics, Medicine, Race/Ethnicity, SE Asians

IQ’s of Southeast Asians Raised in the West

Drain Bamage writes:

Yes NNAMs. SEA’s are not as smart as Europeans when raised in the first world. You may see the visible top 20% being successful mirroring the successful 20% in their native countries

Although we have data on Filipinos, we have no data whatsoever on Laotians, Thais, Khmer, Viets or Indonesians in the US. There’s nothing there. However, I have met a number of Lao and Khmer in the US while teaching school and tutoring adults and my basic opinion was that they were not stupid. They seemed to be about on the level of the Viets and Thais. And these were very ordinary uneducated Lao and Khmer refugees who had little education and worked only menial jobs.

Also although there is a lot of overlap, in general the Lao, Khmer, Thai and Viets each had a certain “look” about them, and after a while I got so I could tell them apart pretty well. It’s bull that “they all look the same.”

I had one tutoree who was Mien, and he looked completely different from all the others. He also looked very Chinese. This is a group that like the Hmong originates in Southern China, but many have moved into Laos in the last 300 years. I also thought he might have been smarter than the average of the rest.

3 Comments

Filed under Asians, Filipinos, Flynn Effect, Hmong, Immigration, Indonesians, Intelligence, Khmer, Lao, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, SE Asians, Thai, Vietnamese

A Division of the Asian Races

Found on the Internet:

My definition of the subgroup of mongoloid appearance due to their climatic origin. I am referring to the pure ethnic group before any mixing of ethnic groups.

  • 1. Northern Mongoloid: Tungusic, Mongol, Tibetan, Korean, Northern Chinese, Japanese, Nivki, Chukchi, Yakut, Tuva, Yukaghir, Samoyedic
  • Very cold climate – cold winter, cool summer
  • Small eyes, single eyelid
  • Very Pale skin
  • 2. Southern Mongoloid: Southern Chinese, Burmese, Thai, Lao, Hmong, Mien, Vietnamese, Chin, Shan, Kuki, Bai, Lahu
  • Temperate climate – cool winter, warm summer
  • Medium sized eyes, double eyelids
  • Fair skin
  • 3. Southeast Mongoloid: (Paleomongoloid or Australoid-Mongoloid transitionals) – Taiwan aborigine, Montagnard, Akha, Khmer, Filipino, Indonesian, Malay in Malaysia/Singapore, Karen, Karenni, Naga, Rohinga
  • Hot, tropical climate – no winter, hot summer
  • Large eyes, double or triple eyelids.
  • Brown skin

33 Comments

Filed under Anthropology, Asians, Burmese, Chinese (Ethnic), Filipinos, Hmong, Indonesians, Japanese, Khmer, Koreans, Lao, Malays, Mongolians, Northeast Asians, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, SE Asians, Taiwanese Aborigines, Thai, Vietnamese

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.

 

85 Comments

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

The Hmong IQ Revisited

Repost from the old site.

I made an error in a prior calculation of the Hmong IQ on this blog. It was pretty easy to do. If you look at this link, it seems to be a link describing a study on Hmong students that came up with an IQ of 96.44. But I just went back and looked at it again and the site actually references two separate studies both measuring the same thing – the correlation between the K-BIT and WISC intelligence tests.

One study used students in Florida and came up with the 96.44 IQ score. Another study with a similar title was referenced at the bottom and discussed Hmong students. I did not understand that two separate studies were being referred to here. Here is the link if you want to see how I made the error.

Anyway, I just chased down the real Hmong study and it found an IQ of 82.15 for Hmong 9-year old immigrants in the US. That strikes me as way too low, but that is all we have to go by now. There was an extreme divergence between Performance = 95 and Verbal =74 (!) IQ scores. The verbal score strikes me as far too low, and indicates that the students may have had a hard time with the English language.

I have spent quite a bit of time working with Hmong adults of various ages in Fresno, and my impression was that they are not stupid at all. In fact, I felt that they were some of the more intelligent of the SE Asians. A friend of the family in Davis, California has worked a lot with the Mien, a group that is probably very closely related to the Hmong. The children live amongst incredible deprivation there but are often star students.

I feel that as the Hmong stay in the US longer, their IQ scores are sure to rise.

A similar thing occurred with Italians in the US. Around 1920, Italians were scoring about 77-78 on IQ tests and exhibited considerable social pathology such as high crime rates, school failure, gang membership, etc. Much ink was expended on the genetic unfitness of Southern Europeans in general and Italians in particular. These popular attitudes were an impetus for the 1924 Immigration Act that limited immigration from Southern Europe.

Anyone who has spent a lot of time around Italian-Americans these days knows that none of these things are true anymore. Although studies are lacking, it appears that Italian-Americans score around the US White average of 100. In Europe, Italians are one of the highest-scoring groups on the continent.

The paper on the Hmong IQ (the only study of the Hmong IQ ever done, to my knowledge) is here. Prior posts referencing the incorrect score have been revised accordingly.

References

Smith, Douglas K., Wessels, Richard A., Riebel, Emily M. August 1997. Use of the WISC-III and K-BIT with Hmong Students. School Psychology Training Program University of Wisconsin-River Falls. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.

1 Comment

Filed under Asians, Europeans, Hmong, Immigration, Intelligence, Italians, Law, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Reposts From The Old Site, SE Asians, USA

Some Southeast Asian Types

Following up on our recent post about Mongoloid types, let us look at SE Asians, or more properly Southern Mongoloids.

A classic Lao beauty. Does she look Australoid-Mongoloid? Give it up.

A very beautiful Laotian girl.

A very beautiful Laotian girl.

Malay types vary considerably, but this is a nice example of a common phenotype.

A classic Malay type, a very beautiful woman. Note the Muslim headscarf.

A classic Malay type, a very beautiful woman. Note the Muslim headscarf.

Common Thai type. Note light skin, common in Thailand. Many Thais have considerable Chinese ancestry.

Thais vary quite a bit in their features, but this is fairly common Thai phenotype. Note the very light skin.

Thais vary quite a bit in their features, but this is fairly common Thai phenotype. Note the very light skin.

Fascinating people, the Taiwanese aborigines. Probably derived possibly from an ancient Ainuid type base. They often have an almost Caucasoid or Amerindian appearance, which suggests an Ainuid origin.

Taiwanese aborigines, a very interesting type. The woman have probably had breast implants. They look something like Amerindians.

Taiwanese aborigines, a very interesting type. The woman have probably had breast implants. They look something like Amerindians.

The Hmong say that Hmong women sometimes give birth to babies with blond hair and blue eyes, a legacy perhaps of their origins in the Tarim Basin long ago, the same homeland as the Tocharians and the Tarim Mummies (Tocharian speakers). That area has a long history of Caucasoid-Mongoloid interaction. I thought blond hair and blue eyes were recessive and would never show up in a Mongoloid line but maybe I am wrong.

A Hmong woman with, incredibly enough, a blond baby. When I worked with the Hmong, they told me that blond and blue eyed babies were sometimes born to Hmong women, a legacy of their origin in the Tarim Basin long ago.

A Hmong woman with, incredibly enough, a blond baby. When I worked with the Hmong, they told me that blond and blue eyed babies were sometimes born to Hmong women, a legacy of their origin in the Tarim Basin long ago.

The young Vietnamese woman below has heavy Chinese or Cantonese genetics. Note light skin color. There are many Chinese in Vietnam and many Vietnamese have varying amounts of Chinese genes in them. Nevertheless, many ethnic Vietnamese hate Chinese people, and many Viet Chinese complain of discrimination from the Viets. Many fled after the Communist takeover because they ran businesses in the South.

A Vietnamese woman with heavy Chinese (Cantonese) admixture. There are many Chinese in Vietnam.

A Vietnamese woman with heavy Chinese (Cantonese) admixture. There are many Chinese in Vietnam.

Muong, who speak a language very close to Vietnamese, have a very Cantonese appearance. They probably have similar origins with the Vietnamese – a mix of recent Cantonese invaders plus native SE Asian “montagnard” types. The Cantonese invaded about 2,200 years ago.

The Muong, a group in Vietnam that is very closely related to the Viets. Note the strong Cantonese appearance.

The Muong, a group in Vietnam that is very closely related to the Viets. Note the strong Cantonese appearance.

Dark skinned Tai girls from northern Vietnam. They speak a Tai language. Related to the Thais of Thailand but not the same group.

The Tai minority of Vietnam. This is not the same group as the Thai of Thailand, but they speak a related language. Groups include Black Tai, Red Tai, etc. They live in the north. Note dark skin.

The Tai minority of Vietnam. This is not the same group as the Thai of Thailand, but they speak a related language. Groups include Black Tai, Red Tai, etc. They live in the north. Note dark skin.

Palaung, a Mon-Khmer group from Burma, Yunnan and Thailand. Skin is dark. Probably an aboriginal SE Asian group native to the region.

Palaung, a group from southern China and Thailand. Note resemblance to Tai.

Palaung, a group from southern China and Thailand. Note resemblance to Tai.

The Nung live in Vietnam. This Thai-speaking group has a strong Yunnanese South Chinese appearance. This group is part of Zhuang of Southern China (Yunnan). The Tai peoples came from Fujian and Guangdong long ago.

The Nung, a group from Vietnam. Very strong Southern Chinese (Yunnanese) appearance.

The Nung, a group from Vietnam. Very strong Southern Chinese (Yunnanese) appearance.

The Bai, a Tibeto-Burman group of Yunnan, may have origins in the north. Note Korean-looking faces and very North Mongoloid appearance.

The Bai, a Tibeto-Burman group from Southern China. Note rounded cheekbones similar to Koreans.

The Bai, a Tibeto-Burman group from Southern China. Note rounded cheekbones similar to Koreans.

The Yi or Lolo of Yunnan, Vietnam and Thailand, a Tibeto-Burman group. Beautiful women. The language is very close to Burman. Probably genetically related to Tibetans. Origin possibly in far northeastern Tibet.

The Yi or Lolo, a Tibeto-Burman group from Yunnan.

The Yi or Lolo, a Tibeto-Burman group from Yunnan.

A Tibeto-Burman speaking Akha tribal woman from the north of Thailand. They live in Thailand, Burma, Yunnan and Laos. Origins are apparently in Yunnan. They left around 1650 after a Ming Dynasty invasion. Very closely related to the Lolo-Yi. This group uses opium heavily.

An Akha tribal woman from northern Thailand. Basically a Yunnanese grouping.

An Akha tribal woman from northern Thailand. Basically a Yunnanese grouping.

Very Malay-appearing Cham Muslims of Cambodia.

Chams, Muslims from Cambodia. Note strong Malay appearance.

Chams, Muslims from Cambodia. Note strong Malay appearance.

More Chams below, these with a more typical SE Asian look.

More Chams. These women have a more typical SE Asian appearance.

More Chams. These women have a more typical SE Asian appearance.

55 Comments

Filed under Anthropology, Asia, Asians, China, Chinese (Ethnic), Hmong, Lao, Malays, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asians, Taiwanese Aborigines, Thai, Vietnam, Vietnamese

Northern and Southern Mongoloids

It is best to split the Mongoloid race into two branches – Northern and Southern Mongoloids.

Northern Mongoloids include the North Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Xibe, Oroquens, Mongolians and various Siberians.

North Mongoloid - South Korean girl.

North Mongoloid – South Korean girl.

Southern Mongoloids include a large grouping including many of the peoples of South China – Tibetans, Dai, Burmese, Thai, Hmong, Khmer, Lao, Vietnamese, Malay, Filipinos, and most Indonesians.

Southern Chinese - Northern and Southern Mongoloid mix.

Southern Chinese – Northern and Southern Mongoloid mix.

Below is a pure Southern Mongoloid.

Southern Mongoloid - Kinaray-a Filipina.

Southern Mongoloid – Kinaray-a Filipina.

For comparison purposes, see a Japanese (N. Mongoloid) and Filipino (S. Mongoloid) mix below.

Japanese - Filipina mix. A mixture of N. Mongoloid and S. Mongoloid in this case results in a phenotype that is mostly N. Mongoloid.

Japanese – Filipina mix. A mixture of N. Mongoloid and S. Mongoloid in this case results in a phenotype that is mostly N. Mongoloid.

There is a lot of controversy on the boards about this issue. Some say that Southeast Asians are not pure Mongoloids – that instead they are Mongoloid-Australoids. Most of this critique comes from Chinese racists. Many of these Chinese are overseas Chinese who live in the Philippines and Indonesia. Chinese people are unbelievably racist as it is, but the overseas Chinese are some of the most insanely racist of all the Chinese, far more racist than the mainland Chinese.

This is all based on something called Han Supremacism. Han Supremacism is the underlying racist ideology behind almost all Chinese racism. Han Supremacism generally says that Northern Chinese are superior to Southern Chinese. The Southern Chinese were originally the Yue people, but they got conquered by the Han and become Hanized.

According to Han racism, only the Han are Chinese people. All of the other ethnic groups in China – and there are over 80 of them – are all “non-Chinese.” Hence the Taiwan aborigines, the Dai, the Tibetans, the Uighurs, the Mongolians, the Hmong, and some would say even the Cantonese, are all “non-Chinese.”

This is the most vicious Nazi-like ethnic nationalism, whereby only the majority ethnic group is defined as part of the nation and the rest of the residents of the land are said to be “foreigners.” This was precisely the fascist ethnic nationalism that overtook Europe in the 1930’s and 1940’s and it is essential to all fascist movements all over the globe. It was also a part of the ideology of the fascist Young Turks of Turkey when they murdered 2.5 million “non-Turks.” This same fascist ideology resurfaced again in the Balkans in the 1990’s.

The Han want to believe that Southeast Asians are inferior to Northeast Asians. This way of thinking is also prevalent among Japanese, but most Japanese don’t even bother to think about Southeast Asians. They are more concerned with Koreans. The reason for the inferiority of Southeast Asians, according to Han racists, is that they are part Australoid. Strictly speaking, this is not really true.

What is true is that the transition from Australoid to Mongoloid took place much later in Southeast Asia than it did in Northeast Asia. The NE Asian transition took place 9,000 years ago, and the SE Asian transition, at least in Vietnam, took place ~2,200 years ago. Nevertheless, actual Australoid genes in SE Asians are few in number. The Malay and the South Vietnamese have a few Papuan genes, but the numbers are very small. Filipinos only have a sprinkling of genes from the Negritos, similar to the Amerindian genes in many White Americans.

Southeast Asians do tend to have darker skin than Northeast Asians. The fact that they have lighter skin is one of the reasons why North Chinese look down on South Chinese so much.

Even Southern Chinese can have fairly dark skin – see the group below.

Southern Chinese. Note that some Southern Chinese can have fairly dark skin.

Southern Chinese. Note that some Southern Chinese can have fairly dark skin.

Some Filipinas have skin that is so dark that they could well be Blasians – Black-Asian mixes. However, the woman below is a pure Filipina.

Some Filipinas look very dark. This Filipina could even be a Blasian, but she is 100% Filipina.

Some Filipinas look very dark. This Filipina could even be a Blasian, but she is 100% Filipina.

While most Filipinos have no observable Negrito blood, in the urban slums, you can sometimes see Filipinos with Negrito elements. The girls below seem to be mostly Southern Mongoloid (Filipino) but they seem to have a small Negrito element.

Slum dwelling children in the Philippines. These kids appear to have some Negrito in them. Some Filipinos have observable Negrito elements, but most do not.

Slum dwelling children in the Philippines. These kids appear to have some Negrito in them. Some Filipinos have observable Negrito elements, but most do not.

Below are Filipino Negritos. They would be regarded as an Australoid people.

Pure Ati from the Philippines. These Negrito people have very low population numbers and may even be going extinct.

Pure Ati from the Philippines. These Negrito people have very low population numbers and may even be going extinct.

The Negrito woman and her child below have quite a bit of Mongoloid genes in them.

Ati mix

The true Australoid-Mongoloid types would be the Eastern Indonesians, the Melanesians, the Micronesians and the Polynesians. The Polynesians are ~50% Austronesian and ~50% Melanesian. Micronesians have more Melanesian in them. Melanesians are a mix primarily of Austronesian and Papuan.

A Timorese woman, a true Mongoloid-Australoid mix. Timorese are about 80% Melanesian and 20% Southern Mongoloid (Austronesian)

A Timorese woman, a true Mongoloid-Australoid mix. Timorese are about 80% Melanesian and 20% Southern Mongoloid (Austronesian)

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

217 Comments

Filed under Anthropology, Asians, Burmese, Chinese (Ethnic), Ethnic Nationalism, Fascism, Filipinos, Hmong, Indonesians, Japanese, Khmer, Koreans, Lao, Melanesians, Micronesians, Mongolians, Nationalism, Negritos, Northeast Asians, Oceanians, Papuans, Physical, Political Science, Polynesians, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, SE Asians, Siberians, Taiwanese Aborigines, Thai, Tibetans, Vietnamese

A North-South Chinese Mix Cline in SE Asia?

Repost from the old site.

A question from the comments about the Are SE Asians Australoids? article:

Aren’t Khmer a little more Australoid than people in Vietnam (at least Northern Vietnamese), most Thai, and Laotians? There seems to be a clear cline in Southeast Asia, the areas bordering China seem to have more NE Mongoloid Admixture than those of the Malay archipelago and the Khmer. I’m basing this on appearance and not genes, which you pointed out, rightly so, as being misleading.

This question keeps popping up because so many folks are convinced, based primarily on appearance, that many SE Asians are part-Australoid.

First of all, the Vietnamese, Filipinos, Thai and Khmer are all quite close to the Southern Chinese genetically. Of these, believe it or not, the Filipinos are possibly the closest of all. The Vietnamese are also very close, but I don’t have any figures. Both the Filipinos and the Vietnamese are very close to the coastal Southern Chinese of Fujian and Guangdong Province bordering the Taiwan Strait.

Next come the Thai, Lao and the Khmer. These groups are much closer to the Southern Chinese than Malays or Indonesians. All of them are about the equidistant from the Southern Chinese. Filipinos are much closer to the Southern Chinese than these three groups.

The Thai and Lao are primarily a Southern Chinese group called the Tai that came down into that area in a massive wave about 800 years ago. To some extent they bred in with whatever people were already there. This Tai group came from Yunnan.

The Vietnamese are very closely related to the Southern Chinese. A huge wave of Southern Chinese poured into Vietnam 2,200 years and bred in with existing people. This group came from the Taiwan Strait – the area north of Vietnam along the coast.

The Khmer came down into the area possibly 5,000 years ago with the first wave of Austroasiatics. They also came from Southern China, probably Yunnan once again, but longer ago than their neighbors the Thai, Lao and Vietnamese. The Austroasiatics are considered to be some of the original people of the SE Asia.

The Zhuang of South China are probably the purest relatives of the original Austroasiatics. They came from Central China (possibly originally as the Dai) to Yunnan about 5,000 years ago. One line went to the Zhuang in Guangxi in Southwest China and another line went to the modern Tai-Dai in Yunnan.

Also, the Khmer bred in much more than their neighbors with people from India who came about 1,500 years ago. So, the Khmer contain more of the original Austroasiatic group and less of recent Southern Chinese mixture than the Thai, Lao and Vietnamese. This accounts for their appearance.

Filipinos are closer to Southern Chinese (Guangdong) than any of the groups above except maybe Vietnamese. They are also very close to Taiwan aborigines. Most people have a hard time understanding this because they look so different from most Southern Chinese. But there are Chinese from around Fujian and Hong Kong who look quite dark and, to my mind, SE Asian-looking.

Malays are Taiwan aborigines in large part (Austronesians), and are also are made up of Southern Chinese who came down 4,000 years ago as Austroasiatics.

The Austronesians came through the Philippines, down into Borneo and Sumatra and then up into Malaysia about 2,000 years ago. The Malay do have some Papuan genes, but so do the Southern Chinese and the coastal Vietnamese. Once again, the Malays have less recent Southern Chinese admixture and more archaic Southern Chinese admixture (Austronesian and Austroasiatic).

Malays also definitely have Australoid ancestors in the Semang, the proto-Malay and the Senoi, although we can’t see it in their skulls or much of it in their genes.

The Indonesians in the Center and East of the country have quite a few Melanesian Australoid genes, but the ones in the West have almost none. The ones in the West appear to be Taiwanese aborigines similar to Filipinos.

It’s really a common fallacy that there is such a cline in SE Asia, with folks becoming more Australoid and less Chinese as you go south. What there is is that in some places, you find more recent Southern Chinese mixture and towards the South, you get more archaic Taiwanese and archaic Southern Chinese mixture.

A modern Southern Chinese woman from Chengdu Province. Isn’t she beautiful? God I love this kind of woman. It’s possible she may use some sort of skin whitener to make her skin look more white, or she may just stay out of the sun. White skin has been highly valued for a long time, and my blogging colleague Dragon Horse (feel free to check him out – he’s smart as Hell) notes that it had been highly valued long before Chinese even knew much about Europeans.

In other words, Chinese were not trying to look like White Europeans – they hardly even knew who they were. A preference for lighter skin was simply an independent development in China based on their own considerations and values. Many will look at this woman and say she has a NE Asian facial type. Well, that may be so, but Caucasians are closer to NE Asians than she is as a Southern Chinese. The genetic distance between Southern Chinese and Northern Chinese is vast.

We only find a few Australoid genes in SE Asians and even then only in Southern Chinese, coastal Vietnamese and Malays. Skull-wise, nothing exists, except that the Senoi of Malaysia do have Australoid skulls.

I guess people say this based on appearance. There is a SE Asian native type characterized most prominently by Malays, Khmer, Filipino, Western Indonesians, etc. that people think looks a bit primitive, and they associate that with Australoids.

Really it’s just a native indigenous development, although it does seem to represent a more archaic type – either archaic Taiwanese or archaic South Chinese – and has nothing to do per se with Australoids.

Recall however that the whole region slowly transitioned from Australoid types to modern SE Asian types about 5000 years ago, and that’s later than most groups. Maybe that is what people are seeing. But there’s nothing we can measure in genes or skulls.

Thai, Lao and Vietnamese don’t have any NE Asian mixture that we can see. There is a Southern Chinese look that can resemble Northern Chinese, but the two groups are very far apart. Even Southern Chinese don’t have much northern mixture, but there are some groups that are more northern than others.

The Wa (Va) of Yunnan and Burma are about 50-50 Northern and Southern Chinese, and the Hmong have more Northern Chinese than other Southern Chinese groups.

A Hmong woman. We have a huge Hmong population here in the Central Valley. By and large, they are good people and I like them a lot. The Hmong are interesting among Southern Chinese in that they have more Northern Chinese than most of the rest of the Southern Chinese. They also have a unique genetic line going back up to 42,000 years (!). It’s pretty incredible that some sort of proto-Hmong have been evolving for that long.

The website I got this off described Hmong as partly Australoid, but I think that’s silly. They are saying this by looking at the faces and saying that the face looks somewhat Australoid. The Hmong are probably less Australoid than that Chengdu woman above.

I find some of these Hmong women, like this one, to be really beautiful. They definitely look different. They have round, moon-shaped faces, and short, stocky, bodies. Character-wise, they are very Chinese-like.

Their IQ in the US is only 82.5 (lower than US Blacks) but that must be due to language difficulties. Their verbal IQ was insanely low, while their performance IQ was quite high. The Hmong have also been living like hillbillies for centuries, so there is probably a lot of potential for Flynn Effects in the US. That’s a traditional costume she is wearing.

Caucasians are closer to Northern Chinese than Southern Chinese are.

A classic NE Asian, in this case a Manchu woman. The Caucasians that they most resemble are Northern Turkics such as some of the people in the Altai and the residents of the Stans.

I can’t see much difference in phenotype between her and the Southern Chinese beauty above, but maybe folks who understand Asian phenotypes better can see these things. These people are also quite close genetically to Amerindians. Koreans, Japanese and NE Chinese are all quite genetically close, although I guess they mostly hate each other and would not want to believe that.

A Tajik man. Boy, does he look Jewish or what? These people are quite closely related to NE Asians and also to Northern Indians. They are closest to Iranians. A very interesting people, they are thought to be the original Aryans. Funny how Aryans White Power types go back to Aryan dudes who look like nice Jewish boys. Wonders never cease.

People base so much popular anthropology on superficial appearances, but that’s not really scientific.

33 Comments

Filed under Anthropology, Asians, Chinese (Ethnic), Filipinos, Hmong, Indonesians, Khmer, Lao, Malays, Northeast Asians, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Reposts From The Old Site, SE Asians, Taiwanese Aborigines, Thai, Vietnamese

Asian Crime Rates: A Lesson in Mathematics

Repost from the old site.

Since most folks are downright illiterate when it comes to math, it’s time for a little math lesson. One type of factoid that seems to continually ensnare Americans is the “Y number of people are killed by X type of people per year”, game.

It stands to reason that if all of X people group is locked up or kicked out of the country, Y # of the people’s lives will be saved. I am no fan at all of illegal immigration, but I do not like fake arguments either. A fave argument of the anti-illegal crowd is this (scroll down to see the comment):

Every year over 9000 (three times the number killed on 9/11) Americans are killed by invading Hispanic illegals (primarily Mexicans). This is also far more Americans killed on American soil than have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq since the start of the invasions.I’m not aware of any Americans killed in America every year by Iraqis or Afghanis, are you?

So I ask you, which of the countries I’ve mentioned above is America’s greatest enemy and responsible for the greatest numbers of American civilian deaths? I’m talking women and children as well as men.

As you can see, this argument sounds pretty powerful, and it may well be true, I have no idea, though the figures seem awfully high to me. How can 12-20 million illegals possibly kill 9,000 Americans per year? That is 25 Americans killed by illegals every single day here. Don’t you think this would be all over the papers?

But there is a way that all such articles are potentially red herrings. For instance, suppose that we could prove that Asian-Americans and Asian immigrants, legal and illegal, are responsible for X number of crimes or X number of homicides per year. The argument would say that if these Asians did not live in the US, those lives would be saved or those crimes would not have occurred.

And this much is true. But in all cases, someone else would have been killed or victimized instead. The truth is that the crime rate in the US would actually increase if all Asian immigrants and Asian-Americans were deported. The lives of some murder victims would be saved, but even more would be murdered as a result of the deportation.

Some would be saved from being crime victims, but even more other people would be victimized in their stead.

You are sitting here thinking, how does this make any sense at all? Well, it has to do with averages. Asians in the US have a crime rate that is fully more than 4 times lower than the White crime rate, which itself is already quite low.

Therefore, as the percentage of population that is Asian increases, the US crime rate will decrease, even if the increased population creates new victims as a consequence of sheer numbers. As the percentage of the US population that is Asian decreases, the US crime rate will increase, even with fewer people in the country.

Because what we are looking at here are not individual crime cases, but instead we are looking at crime rates as a whole. And this is really the only thing that you should concern yourself with if you are worried about becoming a crime victim.

The 4 times lower crime rate applies to all US Asians, who make up about 3% of the population. It even includes Filipinos, who make up 1% of the US population.

This is interesting because some consider Filipinos to be a crime-prone race compared to the rest of Asians. Japanese, Chinese and Koreans are well-known for looking down on Filipinos as not being real Asians. Phrases like the “niggers of Asia” are even tossed around. In Japan, there are signs outside establishments saying, “No Filipinos Allowed”*.

This despite the fact that there are many Koreans in the Philippines studying English.

Or that Chinese, 2% of the Philippines population, control an incredible 70% of the wealth in the nation. Indonesia has similar obscene figures for their tiny Chinese population. No wonder there are periodic pogroms against the Chinese in Philippines and Indonesia. There was a similar situation in Vietnam with the overseas Chinese, as they are known, and consequently many Vietnamese do not like Chinese much at all.

The low Asian crime rate also includes US Filipino, Vietnamese, Laotian, Cambodian and Hmong street gangs, the bane of US anti-immigrant groups. Apparently the crime rates of these gangs are dramatically offset by the extremely low crime rates of older members of these groups who are not in gangs.

So, the slow displacement of US Whites by Asian immigrants, while not pleasant for US Whites in many ways, will actually make the US a safer place to live, all other things being equal.

*Warning: Racist website.

2 Comments

Filed under Asia, Asians, Chinese (Ethnic), Crime, Europeans, Filipinos, Hmong, Illegal, Immigration, Indonesia, Japanese, Koreans, Lao, Legal, Northeast Asians, Philippines, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Reposts From The Old Site, SE Asia, SE Asians, Vietnam, Vietnamese, Whites

IQ and Crime in the US Redux

Repost from the old site.

This is follow-up to an earlier post – Black Crime and Intelligence – An Intrepid Investigation. No matter how much Leftists and liberals deny it, there are clear differences in racial crime rates in the US. US Hispanics and Blacks have higher crime rates than Whites in the US in the same way that Asians have lower rates. It is neither controversial nor racist to report on this observable fact.

The usual Left explanation for elevated Hispanic and Black crime rates is poverty, lack of opportunity, unemployment, low rates of educational attainment, lack of government investment and poor schools in poor Black and Hispanic neighborhoods. The general rationale behind all of these is said to endemic White structural racism and discrimination against Blacks and Hispanics.

Another argument is that Blacks and Hispanics do not have elevated crime rates – it is only that racist police racially profile Blacks and Hispanics to stop and search them more often, resulting in higher arrest rates, while Whites who are just as criminal are let off the hook.

These appealing arguments are becoming harder and harder to sustain in the face of new evidence and rapidly decreasing White racism in US society. This decline has occurred in tandem with harsh penalties – social, occupational and monetary – against Whites who discriminate against non-Whites, continuing affirmative action programs, quotas and goals, judicial mandates for ethnically diverse schools and workforces, etc.

All of this has resulted in a White population whose recent thinking has been molded by anti-racist discourse and who consciously try to avoid overt anti-White discrimination and even bigotry most of the time. This is actually a good thing. Each and every human being should be evaluated and treated on their individual merits or demerits, race be damned. And, regarding crime, the judicial system should be fair with regard to suspects and arrestees.

One problem in getting a handle on racial differences in crime rates is that it has been very difficult to find good ethnic breakdowns of US crime rates, mostly because law enforcement agencies usually refuse to count Hispanic offenders at all or in any rational way.

The Color of Crime, a report by the frankly racist New Century Foundation, is nevertheless an excellent document that has managed to dredge up some good figures for Hispanic, American Indian and Pacific Islander (in the US, they are about 50% Hawaiian, 25% Samoan and 20% Chamorros on Guam and in the US Micronesian Territories) crime rates in the US.

Samoans and Hawaiians are Polynesians, but Chamorros are Micronesians. Hawaiians are well-known to have an elevated crime rate in Hawaii. For instance, Hawaii has the highest rate of theft, larceny and property crime of any state. It is a good guess that much of this stealing is being done by native Hawaiians.

In (independent) Western Samoa itself, recent reports describe a traditional society with a crime rate is extremely low.

But statistics from 30-40 years ago tell another story.

In Western Samoa in the mid-60’s, the rates of assault and serious assault were 400 percent and 40 percent higher, respectively, than the rest of the US. In 1977, Western Samoa had a murder rate 60 percent higher than the rest of the US. In American Samoa the rate was much higher – 460 percent higher than the rest of the US.

In general, the Samoan crime rate in the rest of the US is not known. However, Samoans are over-represented in juvenile hall in San Francisco, and across the bay in Alameda County, Samoans have a higher crime rate than Hispanics.

And in Micronesia, on Guam at least, the crime rate has gone through the roof since the 1960’s, whereas previously it was quite low. The breakdown of the nuclear family and the introduction of a money-based economy has been blamed for the crime explosion on Guam. Saipan is also now reported to have a high crime, and even murder, rate. The reasons are not known.

It has been idiotically bashed all over the Left as “racist”. Here is a typical argument, this one from Wikipedia:

One New Century Foundation’s publication, The Color of Crime, makes various claims about the relationship between crime and race. The publication concludes that black people are more dangerous than white people, just as “young people are more dangerous than old people” and “men are more dangerous than women.” It claims that is logical to take precautions around black people.

The SPLC has led attacks against the report authored by the execrable Heidi Weiss, leader of an attack force against the fine scholar Kevin MacDonald. The attacks by Tim Wise on ZNet are quite sophisticated. An excellent rebuttal of many of Wise’s main points can be found on Global Politician here.

Bottom line is that Wise appears to be disputing what seems obvious to most any non-Leftist with a brain: Black people have a dramatically elevated crime rate, and one is more likely to be victimized by Blacks than by Whites, no matter what one’s race is.

Furthermore, Wise’s characterizing of Jared Taylor as a “White Supremacist” is as problematic as calling 99% of US Jews “Jewish supremacists” based on their Zionism. How about “White Nationalist”? And it is grossly unfair of Wise to call Taylor a Nazi, especially since he renounces anti-Semitism.

Wise is an anti-racist activist. I am an anti-racist too, but facts are facts.

Despite the fact that The Century Foundation authored the report, The Color of Crime is excellent, and attacks on the report do not do it service. Those opposed to the report are asked to logically rebut its arguments or hold their tongues.

The best figures are towards the middle of the report. Of most interest are the overall Hispanic and Black crime rates. The report states that the Black crime rate is 7.4 times the White rate, the Hispanic rate is 2.9 times the White rate and the Indian and Hawaiian rates are about 2 times the White rate.

From another study, Masking the Divide, by the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives (actually a liberal think tank), the figures are a bit different: the Black crime rate is 9.1 times the White crime rate and the Hispanic crime rate is 3.7 times the White crime rate.
Combining the two reports, we get a Black crime rate 8.2 times the White rate and an Hispanic crime rate 3.3 times the White rate.

The Color of Crime found that poverty, unemployment and lack of education add little to the Black and Hispanic crime rate differentials compared to the White rate – that is, when Whites, Blacks and Hispanics all live in poverty, have the same low educational variables and the same unemployment rates, the differential between Blacks and Hispanics as opposed to Whites remains pretty much the same.

The report also effectively deals with familiar complaints from the Left that the Black crime rate is so high because police selectively target Blacks for arrest while ignoring White criminals. A careful examination of the data in the report, shows that, actually, looking at the whole picture, if anything, the system is somewhat prejudiced in favor of Blacks and against Whites.

There is a suggestion that Blacks are actually underrepresented, and Whites, overrepresented, in the nation’s prison population as compared to their actual crime rates. Hence, prejudice and discrimination does not appear to be a significant factor in Black crime rates.

Further, Blacks are much more likely to target Whites as crime victims than vice versa.

An incredible anecdote: In a 3-year period in the US, there were 9,000 cases of group Black on White sexual assaults – about 10 per day. In that same 3-year period, Whites, with a 4.5 times greater population, committed exactly zero group sexual assaults on Blacks. That figure alone is simply stunning.

The Left loves to talk about hate crimes, but the only hate crimes they are interested in are White hate crimes against non-Whites. The report makes it quite clear that Blacks are much more likely to commit hate crimes against Whites than vice versa.

What is fascinating is that the media plays up White on Black hate crimes for weeks on end as the crimes of the century, while Black on White hate crimes are met with deafening silence. That right there would seem to give the lie to the notion that the US media is hopelessly prejudiced against Blacks and in favor of Whites. If anything, the opposite seems to be the case.

I have no idea why Whites are so much less likely to commit crimes than Blacks or Hispanics, or even why the lesser differential between Whites and Amerindians and Hawaiians exists, nor why Asians commit crimes at dramatically lower rates than Whites. Some will talk about genes and others about culture.

Lining up IQ with crime rates seems entirely logical to me. Groups with lower average IQ’s should commit more crimes than those with higher IQ’s on an ascending linear scale.

Unfortunately, the results do not pan out very well. Let us look at some racial IQ scores followed by racial crime rates in the US:

IQ scores:

East Asians:1    106 (link)
Whites:          103 (link)
Hispanics:       89 (link)
American Indians 87 (link)
Blacks           85 (link)
Polynesians      85 (link, link and link).
Crime rates:

Asians:      78% lower than Whites (!)
Whites:      Baseline
Amerindians: 100% higher than Whites
Polynesians: 100% higher than Whites
Hispanics:   230% higher than Whites
Blacks:      720% higher than Whites (!)

The racial IQ scores and racial crime rates do not line up very well; there are some correlations, but there are also some problems. The small difference between East Asian and White IQ’s in the US would not seem adequate to explain an Asian crime rate that is a mere 22% of the White average.

The Hispanic crime rate is 65% higher than the Amerindian and Polynesian crime rates, yet Hispanics have significantly higher IQ’s than both groups . The Black crime rate is an incredible 310% higher than the Amerindian and Polynesian crime rates, despite the fact that all three groups have the same IQ’s.

In these cases, there is absolutely no correlation whatsoever between IQ and crime. There is a modest correlation between crime and IQ between Whites, Blacks and Hispanics, but the differences are completely out of sync with what we would expect merely based on IQ.

In particular, the Black and Hispanic crime rates are far higher than expected by IQ compared to Whites2 (especially looking at the Polynesian and Amerindian figures), and the Black crime rate that is 2.5 times higher than the Hispanic rate is dramatically higher than expected by IQ compared with Hispanics.

Furthermore, we can completely rule out IQ-crime links in Hispanic mestizos . How is it that Amerindians have a crime rate 2 times that of Whites, yet White-Amerindian mixed race people (Mestizos with an average of only 1/3 Indian blood and probably a good amount of heterosis) have a crime rate of 3.3 times that of Whites? That makes no sense whatsoever.

One would expect White-Amerindian mixed-race US Mestizos to have a crime rate median between Whites and Amerindians and probably closer to Whites, say 1.35 times the White rate, considering that Mexicans and Chicanos in the US are about 63% White on average.

Also, from 1960-1995, the Flynn Effect3 has been causing steadily increasing IQ’s in Americans of all ages and ethnic groups. During this period, the US population increased its IQ by 9 points. At the same time, crime exploded from 1960-1980 and has continued at a very high level ever since.

How is it that a steadily rising US IQ has coincided with a skyrocketing crime rate?

The Flynn Effect has had its most noticeable effects at the lowest end of the IQ range – precisely the people that are most likely to commit crimes. Nevertheless, wild crime increases occurred in tandem with a progressive loss of those very people most likely to commit crimes – those with the very lowest IQ’s.

All of this seems to indicate that whatever in God’s name is causing racial differentials in US crime rates, IQ does not seem to play a huge role. Perhaps other biological factors could be involved, but that seems dubious.

For instance, there are recent suggestions that Polynesians (the study looked at Maoris) may be predisposed to violence due high rates of an a gene that codes for low levels of a component – MAO inhibitor – that breaks down neurotransmitters in the brain associated with violent and impulsive behavior.

With lower levels of the MAO inhibitor, Polynesians have higher levels of catecholamines that tend to cause violent and aggressive behaviors.

It is likely that Polynesians selected for aggression during their colonization of the Pacific Islands. Without an aggressive temperament, they may not have been able to undertake mad, near-suicidal journeys on boats to colonize those islands in the first place.

Once on the islands, individual tribes of South Sea Islanders, especially on Fiji and New Zealand, were continuously locked in the most horrible tribal warfare with most of their neighbors, in addition to having downright brutal and vicious societies of their own.

No evidence has yet been presented of a Black or Mestizo genetic propensity to violence. How is it then that the Polynesian Polynesians, with their low rates of MAO-inhibition, have a dramatically lower crime rate than Blacks and Hispanics, who have no provable genetic links to crime?

Very well then. Having disposed of biological arguments, let us move along.

I am inclined to fall back on the old environmental standby – culture. Even if poverty, lack of education and unemployment have little to do with high Black and Hispanic crime rates and the role IQ is not dramatic either, there is yet another explanation:

There is a possibility that in recent years, both Blacks and Hispanics have developed an underclass culture that is simply criminogenic in and of itself. The hows and whys of the development of this underclass can be debated at length, but it’s existence seems uncontroversial, and whatever caused this sick culture, IQ or race itself do not seem to be at work.

See this website, Brown Pride , for an example of a depraved, wicked and amoral subculture operating in the Hispanic underclass.

This Black and Hispanic underclass contrasts with large numbers of Blacks and Hispanics who have “made it”, assimilated to proper US society, are employed and out of poverty, and have relatively low crime rates.

1. The only data available for Asian IQ’s in the US are for East Asians. This group logically includes Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Ainu, Taiwanese, Mongolians, Tibetans, Hmong, Mien and some smaller groups, but we do not know if all these groups were included. Studies in the US usually focus on the first three groups. It is quite difficult to draw a line showing where “East Asians” end and “Southeast Asians” begin.

2. Let us suppose a linear relationship between Hispanic and White IQ’s and crime rates. Extrapolating that to Black IQ, we should get a Black crime rate 4.9 times higher than the White rate; instead the rate is 8.2 times higher. Assuming a linear relationship between Black and White IQ’s and crime rates, we should get an Hispanic rate that is 5.4 times the White rate; instead it is 3.3 times the White rate.

Differentials between White, Hispanic and Black rates alone cannot be fully explained by IQ. Either the Black rate is higher than expected, or the Hispanic rate is lower, or both.

3. The Flynn Effect has been subjected to a lot of criticism, typically emanating from those White Nationalists who refuse to believe that anyone, especially the Blacks and Browns they dislike, is getting smarter. A number of arguments have been put forth, one of the most powerful of which is that the Flynn Effect does not show an increase in intelligence; it just shows that people are getting better at taking tests.

Yet the Flynn Effect shows up as early as 4 years old. One wonders just how many rigorous tests the average 4 yr old has been subjected to? Furthermore, Flynn himself presents some interesting arguments that cast doubt on the test sophistication argument.

Furthermore, in dismissing the Flynn Effect as simply measuring “some abstract test-taking ability”, these same detractors pour cold water on IQ tests themselves, the results of which they so cherish, as they show the delightful 10 and 15 point gaps between Whites and Browns and Blacks respectively. The consensus now is that test-taking skills cannot explain the Flynn Effect.

Another argument is that the Flynn Effect is having little effect on “g”, a hypothesized, supposedly heavily genetic or biological factor of purported pure, raw intelligence.

However, the Flynn Effect is greatest on the most heavily loaded g tests, and much less on the least g-loaded tests. Either “g” means nothing, or “g” is also increasing. Note that there is good evidence that “g” is in fact increasing, and a good theory is that it is related to improved nutrition. More evidence linking nutrition to IQ is found in studies linking IQ with micronutrient levels, namely iron , in the blood.

This is because height has been increasing in tandem with the Flynn Effect (not only that but socialist states are making people taller than less socialist states), and so has head size and cranial capacity and even brain size. This provides an excellent underpinning for increases in the biologically-driven “g”.

Hybrid vigor, or heterosis, which has been increasing, much to the disdain of White Nationalists, has also been suggested as a prime driver of the Flynn Effect. Heterosis has supposedly been increasing in modern society as more isolated, rural and ethnocentric populations move to urban areas and have children with those outside their ethnic group. But Flynn himself completely pours cold water on the heterosis theory.

A very long (24 pp.) discussion about whether or not the Flynn Effect is valid and what it is measuring is here. The American Scientist also took a look at the subject in a much-quoted article.

Steve Sailer wraps it up in a recent post, suggesting that the Flynn Effect shows people are definitely getting smarter, but only in certain ways. Sailer is not even really a White Nationalist, as he advocates “citizenism” as opposed to ethnic ethnocentrism. This is close to the universalism advocated by this blog. His site is always interesting, and it worth a read.

30 Comments

Filed under Ainu, American Samoa, Amerindians, Anti-Racism, Asians, Blacks, Chinese (Ethnic), Civil Rights, Crime, Culture, Europeans, Flynn Effect, Genetics, Hawaiians, Health, Hispanics, Hmong, Intelligence, Japanese, Koreans, Law enforcement, Left, Liberalism, Micronesia, Mien, Mongolians, Northeast Asians, Nutrition, Oceanians, Pacific, Political Science, Polynesia, Polynesians, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Reposts From The Old Site, Saipan, Samoans, SE Asians, Taiwanese Aborigines, Tibetans, Western Samoa, White Nationalism, White Racism, Whites