Malay Japanese Origins

[The Questioner]

This is a request for any and all contributions regarding available data and
comments concerning the little-discussed and much-avoided issue of Japan's
Malay ethnic origins.

The Japanese are known throughout Northeast Asian and Western scholarly
circles for their racist inability to recognize their Korean origins.
Similarly, the Japanese vigorously shun serious discussion of their Malay
origins. The Japanese claim to be "unique," which to them means apart,
separate and unattached to their neighbors. Much of this ideology derives
not from ancient prejudices, but rather a straightforward national
educational and political policy in the 19th Century bent on militarism and
imperialism. Even after WWII, Japanese schoolchildren continue to be
bombarded by the Media, politicians and textbooks with outright or veiled
suggestions that Japan was not an aggressor, that Japan was a liberator, and
that "victim Japan" is being attacked wrongly by Chinese, Filipinos, Koreans
and the rest of Asia.

My belief is that the Japanese "uniqueness" concept was an easy way to make
Japan a military nation. It is always intellectually easier to send soldiers
to vanquish "inferior" countries than to attack your brothers and sisters or
parents, for that matter.

Although the Malayo-Polynesian peoples are probably the world's most
successful seafarers of the pre-modern age (Madagascar to Easter Island, New
Zealand to Japan), the Japanese seem incapable of recognizing that without
great difficulty, ancient Malays likely moved north from Luzon into Taiwan
and continued island-hopping through the Ryukyus into the Japanese islands
of Kyushu, Shikoku, Honshu.
The northward Japan current additionally would aid any seafarer from the
Philippines to Japan.

My personal fields of study, knowledge and interest are history, linguistics
and politics, but my knowledge of Malay history and culture is limited. I
need your help in proving this theory. In Japan, one speaks of another
Japanese looking "northern" or "southern". It seems OBVIOUS that the
"southern" element (what pseudo-science at the disposal of the Japanese
Right calls "Austronesian" or "Paleo-Chinese") is really Malay. The Japanese
use language to twist and pervert reality and history. Sometimes they will
speak of the Malay settlers as coming from "South China." This is a cute
trick of deception. Malay islanders originally came from the mainland of
Asia. Indeed, part of Malaysia is still on the Malay Peninsula, and even
part of Thailand is ethnically Malay. But the Japanese aren't talking about
Malays. They want you to think "Chinese." Just as they try to hide Korean
origins by saying "China" or "Chinese culture" or "mainland' , "peninsular",
"continental influences" "Manchurian" or "Altaic-Tungusic" they use the
China-language game to deny their Malay origins. Their hope is that
outsiders, especially in the West, know little about Asia except for Japan
and China. Internally, they do nothing to encourage their citizens to learn
Filipino, Bahasa, or Korean. They don't even teach English to their students
well enough for most Japanese adults to get along successfully outside
Japan.

Following this posting you may see so-called "studies" presented by
followers of the Japanese Rightist camp. Please be aware that Japanese
"science" and "scholarly studies" financed and encouraged by the Japanese in
the West equally have been bent against logic to serve the fascist racist
goals of the Japanese authorities. They will go to great lengths to "prove"
that Malays never set foot in Japan except as maids and bargirls, and they
will brainwash themselves into believing that the Japanese "race" originated
in Ice Age landbridges and other such unprovable claptrap, while patently
refusing to analyze RECENT historical, archeological, anthropological or
other history. One ruse, as far as Malay Japan is concerned, is the one
where they take DNA from Taiwan and Japan and show no link. The Japanese
seem mysteriously cut off from southeast Asian humanity. The Japanese,
descendents of a mysteriously disappeared unnamed "southern" race just as
they are supposedly descendants of a mysteriously disappeared unnamed
"northern" race? Of course the Taiwan study is bogus, since most of the
current population of Taiwan overwhelmingly originated either from post 1949
mainland movement or Fujian Han Chinese settlement dating not much earlier
than 1600 A.D. I would be very surprised if the study clearly and
scientifically broke down Taiwanese subgroups into aboriginal Taiwanese
Malay, part-aboriginal Malay, and Han Chinese test cases. Conveniently,
Malay aboriginals of Taiwan are not tested alone, and their results is not
compared to the general population of the Ryukyus and Japan. Moreover, one
could further fudge "Japanese" results by stacking the Japanese deck with
Korean genotypes, where there would be a greater likelihood of showing no
Malay connection than with a truly widespread and scientific pan-Japanese
test.

I base my theory of the Malays as the original inhabitants of Western Japan
(the Ainu were in the East) on the following observations, which to me seem
OBVIOUS:

1. Despite what Japanese Rightists and the regional sales managers of Japan
Inc. would like us to believe, the non-Tungusic (Korean) racial element of
the Japanese did not spring out of the earth. Like the Korean settlers,
these people had to come to the Japanese islands from somewhere else. As the
Han Chinese have been ruled out conclusively, Malay or Malayo-Polynesian
Asia offers the only other possible neighborhood source.

2. If they do not look outright Korean, Japanese look either completely or
partly Malay. Speaking only of appearance, many such Japanese could fit
invisibly into the Philippines, simply because their ancestry was
pre-Christian era Filipino.

3. Taiwan was wholly Malay until very recent Fujian Province Chinese
settlement. There still are aboriginal Malay peoples living in tribal and
hybridized Chinese existences in modern Taiwan. According to Ethnologue
(check via your search engines), some of these peoples are linguistically
linked to northern Filipino tribal languages. Of course! There is no reason
to believe that linguistic connections could not be made to the Ryukyus and
onward into Japanese main island linguistic dialectology, although these
studies I suspect are generally supressed or unpublicized. Additionally,
since relatively few foreigners know Japanese --and far fewer are even
remotely competent in dialects other than the current Tokyo national
standard dialect, the study of Japanese modern dialects and, more
importantly, earlier dialects, is left overwhelmingly to the Japanese. This
is the choke-point of information regarding Malay-Japanese history. I
believe that owing to the continuing desire of Japanese authorities to
discourage the truth and to encourage mythmaking or outright fantasy about
Japan's history, no Japanese scholar will be given acclaim in Japan for
proving Malay linguistic links to Japanese. Indeed, I believe that
university promotions in Japan will be not coming to these brave scholars.
Even if the facts are obvious, staring at them in the face, what Japanese
university professor or student would willingly risk his or her career to
prove the obvious Malay-Japanese connections? This is the reality in which
serious scholarship is expected to operate in Japan. Of course, Japanese
Rightist authorities

4. The linguistic and racial map of Okinawa and the other Ryukyus are
complex. My belief is that following the Paekche Korean conquest of Kyushu,
some Korean local rulers in Kyushu with origin in the Kaya Kingdom of Korea
left from Kagoshima to establish a Korean-like (or call it "Japanese-like")
kingdom in Okinawa, which was home to a variety of Malay nationalities,
speaking a variety of Malay dialects.

5. Modern Okinawan dialects, like modern Japanese dialects, as well as the
Japanese national language, are based on grammars used by speakers of early
Korean Kaya and Paekche dialects of Korean, with the addition of Malay
vocabulary, vowel harmony, and word stress and intonation, as well as Malay
pronunciation of Korean words. This is how the Korean word for stone, "tol"
becomes "tori" in Japanese. There are a relatively large variety of vowels
in Korean that disappear in Japanese. This is because Malay vowels are used.
If one wonders why a Japanese might emphasize the "t" with additional stress
in a name such as "Sakamoto" one only need listen to how a Javanese
pronounces "Suharto".

6. Cultural aspects of the Japanese bearing remarkable resemblance to Malay
analogs:
a. The very pervasive Japanese smile, not at all common among Koreans, who
are if anything stone-faced. Chinese are probably at a medium range between
the two extremes. While all humans tend to smile when they are
happy--particularly among friends-- Malays tend to smile A LOT, even when
angered, even when nervous, etc. Informally, the Philippines has been called
in things like tourist brochures "The Smiling Country." The smile in Malay
peoples perhaps seems to be used as a protective device, a shield covering
one's true feelings. A smile can show to an outsider a fearlessness. In
certain Polynesian cultures, a smiling is also present, sometimes with the
addition of the tongue sticking out (Maori warfare pose). Since Malay
tribes in the Philippines have only a recent national culture, and since
intertribal warfare has only relatively recently been ended, it stands to
reason that this cultural aspect would be carried by varied Malay tribal
settler groups to the Ryukyus and Japan.

b. tatooing. This is a more common practice in certain Malayo-Polynesian
peoples, not Koreans or Chinese.

c. I believe the Kimono is a modified sarong, and the artistic graphical
motifs of many of the kimonos remind me of Indonesian batik motifs.

d. Certain early traditional styles of houses in Japan resemble certain
Malay traditional dwellings.

e. puppetry. (although there are certain Korean puppet examples also)

f. The wide-eyed warrior motifs in Japanese art. They do not look Korean,
but rather look Malay.

g. Certain local festivals contain Malay traits, as well as antiquated
Korean Kaya and Paekche village traits.

I believe the Malay history of individual Ryukyu and Japanese villages and
towns would be considered sizable and exciting if it weren't deliberately
buried by Japanese authorities. If the authorities were not actively
ANTI-history, ANTI-science, one would probably see Japan as a rich hybrid
civilization. No, it probably wasn't Paradise. (No country was a paradise.)
If we are to recognize that Japan up until very recently (19th Century) has
been characterized by constant internal regional and local warfare and the
lack of an effective, long-lasting, effective centralized authority, we
could see how the Meiji era of "modernization" would naturally create an
imperialistic Japanese war machine and mentality. The different peoples in
Japan made war amongst themselves for a few thousand years. When they saw
the advantages of Western style modernization, the rulers didn't see
education as a tool for peace, but rather as a training ground for soldiers
to fight in foreign wars. Isn't it remotely unusual to foreigners that
modified military uniforms are still widespread among school uniforms today
in Japan at the dawn of the 21st Century? The ethnic history and regional
cultures of the Japanese and Okinawans were to be erased in order to create
a fascist's notion of a unified, unique Japanese.

My interest in this? I am interested in human rights. Through a powersearch
option on Deja News http://www.dejanews.com one could see my comments
regarding North American genocide against Native Americans, racism against
Africans, America's theft of Filipino independence from the hands of
Aguinaldo, Australian aboriginal genocide and the dangerous fascist One
Australia Party. I shall comment and investigate other issues on every
continent. My interest in the Japanese is that as the world's Number Two
Economy, Japan is not a country that the world should ignore. Some Japanese
politicians still talk of making slaves and prostitutes of its neighbors.
This is not the polite Japan that foreigners are usually shown. This is the
dangerous Japan that has veto power on so-called Japanese democratic parties
when it comes to getting Japan to admit to its wartime crimes and to really
teach its children its ancient and modern history. This is the Japan that
very, very actively lobbies the world to gain a Permanent Seat in the United
Nations Security Council.

Some crazy individuals in the newgroups have suggested I am a hater of
Anglo-Saxons and a Korean nationalist. I am not Korean, although I find
Korean civilization fascinating and believe it has been grossly overlooked
in the West, as has Malay civilization. For the record, I am Caucasian, and
my ancestry comes from at least half a dozen sources in Europe, including
the British Isles. I am American and I understand "American" to mean a
person who is born in or who lives in America, not a term owned by any
particular ethnic, religious or political group.

I couldn't care less about my own ethnic origins, and I am very interested
in all peoples of the world past and present, but I consider my enemy anyone
who believes one people, religion or group is inherently better than
another. Such talk agitates me into contributing to these newsgroups, which,
ironically, are filled with would-be Nazis and would-be bootlickers and
servants of the Nazis. As for my politics, I am a democratic centrist. I do
not like aristocracts, monarchs or elitists. I have been privileged enough
to have gained a first-rate education, but at the same time I can swear to
you from first-hand evidence that prestigious schools also can produce
MORONS, but simply because they possess a diploma from a "top" school their
idiocies often are not challenged.

Also for the record, I hate the crimes and murder of communists and detest
their leftist, "liberal" and "progressive coalition" apologists and moles in
Western intellectual circles. I'm sorry to interrupt this posting with this
uninteresting personal info, but I know that when this article is posted,
some crazies will try to get you to hate me. If you like the truth, and
think that by people knowing the truth, knowing their origins, their
history--including its crimes and glories, then people will have the basic
tools to create a better world, then you probably won't object too much to
The Questioner. Although I ramble far too much. Sorry.

To learn about Korean origins of the Japanese read Professor Wontack Hong's
book online free at http://iias.snu.ac.kr/wthong/paekche/eng/paekch_e.html
You will need to download the adobe acrobat reader, which is also free, at
http://www.adobe.com

[Atsushi Ishida]

Your posts are very interesting and thought-provoking, Mr. Questioner.
That so many Japanese men are taking Filipino brides is certainly
evidence of an incipient re-Malayanization of Japan.

[DirtySickPig]

Yeah, another bunch of racial purists. Heil Hirohito, the oriental aryan!

The best way to piss off the Nips is to suggest they descended from Eskimos who
migrated south. I don't know why they can't take this even as a joke, but the
possibility is apparent when you study a world map plus wind and ocean current
charts. Someone should study and compare the racial make up of Eskimos and
their southern brethren the Nipponese.

BTW, what can you say about the Ainus' claim to even more racial homogeneity
than the rest of Japan?

The Questioner wrote:

> This is a request for any and all contributions regarding available data and
> comments concerning the little-discussed and much-avoided issue of Japan's
> Malay ethnic origins.

snip

[DirtySickPig]

Do you have an estimate of how many Filipino men are marrying Japanese
women? What's your theory?

[Yamane Kazuo]

In an article The Questioner writes:

> This is a request for any and all contributions regarding
> available data and comments concerning the little-discussed
> and much-avoided issue of Japan's Malay ethnic origins.

Here you go again, if you are claim that there were no
Japanese insisting on South East Asian origin for their
early inhabitants then either you are very naive person or
dishonest. Don't look too good either way.
Many in Japan for years have been preaching the theory
that their early inhabitants of Japan, called
Jomon and its descendants Ainu people were of South East Asian stock.
This theory began to be contradicted by recent genetic studies
indicating
Jomon/ainu/Okinawans are of North East Asian group.
Now Questioner insist upon Malays in Japan yet datas are
showing up for her extreme south of her land, Okinawa,
that Okinawans[Ryukyuan] are "northeast Asian cluster group."

"we find first that the three Japanese populations
including Ainu and Ryukyuan clearly belong to a
northeast Asian cluster group."
(American Journal of Physical Antropology, April 1997. pp.437-446)

[Tansong Isda]

The Questioner wrote:

> This is a request for any and all contributions regarding available data and
> comments concerning the little-discussed and much-avoided issue of Japan's
> Malay ethnic origins.

How about looking at the construction of the Japanese language. It is very
similar to Malayan construction, like Tagalog, you have one syllable denoting
tense then root word then one syllable to denote action or to whom the root word
pertains to, I am not a linguist but it seems like it is more Malay than
Continental Asian. I heard Chinese described as a monosyllabic language very
much unlike Japanese.
One sample:
jap. shutukan=tag. suntukan

[The Questioner]

OK, Kazuo. First thing's first. We all agree that the Japanese are of "South
East Asian" origin in part. Good. But you can't say they are part Malay?
Would you go to France or Spain or Romania for that matter and say that
Latin-speaking Romans from the Italian peninsula didn't have any role in
forming the population of these nations? Are the Swedes related to the
Germans? Are the Poles related to the Russians? Are the Syrians related to
the Saudi Arabians? Finns and Kazakhs, they're related; but the Japanese and
their neighbors? NEVER!

You are such a great demander of detailed proofs. WONDERFUL!!! Just as we
had to ask you to name the unnamed Tungusic people who came to Japan through
Korea but who supposedly weren't Korean (you cannot because they were
Korean), who, Kazuo, are the Southeast Asian settlers of Japan who had to
come all the way through the Philippines and Taiwan and the Ryukyus but who
were not Malay? If they were not Malay, who are they and where are their
descendants now? The only other navigating people to come off the Asian
mainland before the Malays and inhabit areas near Japan were the Negritos.
Are they the Japanese ancestors? If not, why not?

I do not give a rat's fuzzy ass about any Japanese theory or Western theory
for that matter that writes the Malays out of Japanese history. If the
Malays were not the people who gave the Japanese half their language and
gene pool, then the Japanese Right should be required to name them, their
specific site of departure and the location of their modern descendants.
Surely we are not expected to believe forever that the "southern" element is
a race entirely unique to Japan, but absent in Taiwan, the Philippines and
elsewhere.

Are the writers of history books, university professors and scholars of
Asian history, not to mention the Japanese themselves, expected to have to
wait until "proof" surfaces? I maintain the proof is obvious, and what is
not obvious, is deliberately buried or surpressed.

Japanese history should be taught starting from the obvious first.
Unprovable supposed icebridge theories and Chinese Iceman theories should
never be the first point of departure, but they are. Western scholars
either blindly repeat Japanese myths or give them equal weight with more
reasonable theories. Imagine if British schoolchildren were taught more
about Britain and the Ice Age than about the Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings
and Normans? (And imagine if data on the these groups had been aggressively
suppressed from the public record or discussion.) Their twisted self-image
would be more like what the Japanese Education Ministry has produced in the
Japanese public. Absent real education, pop theories, either products of the
Japanese Right or independent crazies and fiction writers masquerading as
pop historians run rampant.
In the environment of extreme ignorance, theories such as "Israelites Came
to Ancient Japan" circulate. (See:
http://www.ask.or.jp/~remnant/isracame.htm )

The Japanese Right denies the obvious, delays, lies, confuses, and talks
about theoretical people from 50,000 years ago before it can talk about
people coming into Japan in the last few millenia. The Japanese cannot look
at themselves in the mirror and see Malay and Korean. They cannot look at
maps, which show the Japanese islands connected to chains of islands from
the Philippines and Japan. The obvious is never the starting point to then
be disproved by science. The obvious is to be AVOIDED at all costs. Foreign
and Japanese scholars are to devote considerable discussion first to the
bogus. They will conjure up bogus theories, only for them to be proven wrong
twenty or thirty years later. This I am convinced is a strategic policy to
wear out the rational opposition, exactly the way compensation for the Asian
"Comfort Women" has been dragged out, waiting for them to die. The Japanese
would like the Koreans to kill themselves off in one last war, and they
figure that the Malay aboriginals of Taiwan will go the way of the Manchus,
blending into the Chinese majority. Then the Japanese could come out with
new theories for the gullible "scholars" in the West to repeat to another
generation of students. With ignorance of minority or dead cultures, the
West would believe the Japanese claims of uniqueness.

I am glad you agree that all the Japanese know there are Southeast Asian
origins to the Japanese. The interesting thing is that everyone is afraid to
say "Malay." Don't you know that the French are proud that they are Gauls
(Celts), Latins and Franks (Germans)? Is it so hard for the Japanese to use
real names of real peoples to describe their ancestry?

The Ainu are, of course, a Siberian people. They are not Southeast Asian,
nor are the Koreans. To learn about Siberian peoples and the peoples of
Alaska, a good book to start with is William W. Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell's
"Crossroads of Continents"(Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press,
1988--you could try the Asia Society bookstore. I think it's at http://www.
asiasociety.org ) Although there is little here on the Ainu, one could see
the neighbors of the Ainu. Sometimes the Japanese try to make the Ainu into
some sort of incomprehensible "Proto-Caucasoid" when in fact they fit neatly
into the Northeast Asian ethnic makeup of Siberia and the Inuit and Aleuts
of Alaska. This is a great book to learn about Siberian shamanism, which was
and still is a strong element in Korean traditional culture as well as in
Koreo-Japanese shintoism -- Buddhism and Neo-Confucianism and Christianity
notwithstanding. Lots of pictures and maps.

The Ryukyuan (Okinawan) people are like the Japanese: a mix of Korean and
Malay. If one wishes to classify a multiethnic people as belonging to one
group, that can only be either a shocking oversight or a lie. This would be
like taking a Filipino of Malay, Chinese and Spanish ancestry in order to
conclude that the Philippines, Portugal, France, Italy, and Romania are all
Latin nations.

Kazuo, as you know, you could take all the Western scholars on Japan,
Okinawa and the whole of Southeast Asia and together their numbers would be
so small they could probably number no more than a few thousand. That
includes morons and half-wits who barely know the difference between shit
and shinola. How many of them are either infected with Western racist and
neo-imperialist anthropological training or a 1950's era miseducation/
brainwashing regarding Japanese origins? Most all of them, I believe. That
is why you still can pick up books saying the Ainu are "Proto-Caucasoid" or
that "the origins of the Japanese are shrouded in mystery." We are talking
about either GROSS INCOMPETENCE or Outright Payoff.

Memo to the World: Regarding Japan studies, the only studies you should be
more skeptical of than those originating in Japan are those originating in
the U.S. or Europe. They provide the Japanese Right with "cover."

Yamane Kazuo wrote in message <3595d680...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...

>
>In an article The Questioner writes:
>

>> This is a request for any and all contributions regarding
>> available data and comments concerning the little-discussed
>> and much-avoided issue of Japan's Malay ethnic origins.
>

[Iskandar Baharuddin]

The Questioner wrote:
>
> This is a request for any and all contributions regarding available data and
> comments concerning the little-discussed and much-avoided issue of Japan's
> Malay ethnic origins.
>

snipped with great reluctance.

>
> To learn about Korean origins of the Japanese read Professor Wontack Hong's
> book online free at http://iias.snu.ac.kr/wthong/paekche/eng/paekch_e.html
> You will need to download the adobe acrobat reader, which is also free, at
> http://www.adobe.com

One of the best postings I have ever seen.

You will probably be hunted down and killed, but keep up the
good work anyway.

--
Salaam & Shalom

Izzy

"Ciri sa-bumi, cara sa-desa" - Old Sundanese saying.

English translation: "People all over the world are basically
about the same, but the way they go about doing things depends
upon the village they come from."

[Iskandar Baharuddin]

The Questioner wrote:
>
> OK, Kazuo. First thing's first. We all agree that the Japanese are of "South
> East Asian" origin in part. Good. But you can't say they are part Malay?
> Would you go to France or Spain or Romania for that matter and say that
> Latin-speaking Romans from the Italian peninsula didn't have any role in
> forming the population of these nations? Are the Swedes related to the
> Germans? Are the Poles related to the Russians? Are the Syrians related to
> the Saudi Arabians? Finns and Kazakhs, they're related; but the Japanese and
> their neighbors? NEVER!
>

another snip in the interest of traffic reduction.

The Japanese attitude is mirrored here.

There have been strenuous efforts to prove that the so-called
Aborigines of Australia have been here for 200,000 years, and
perhaps were created on the spot.

The hard evidence is, of course, that they are descended from
the early inhabitants of what is now Indonesia. The ones who
stayed at home were exterminated or driven east by the ancestors
of modern Indonesians, aka "pribumi".

Why is it so difficult to admit that we are all Africans?

[cro...@kuentos.guam.net]

In <3595C74C...@worldnet.att.net>, DirtySickPig <Oink...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>Do you have an estimate of how many Filipino men are marrying Japanese
>women? What's your theory?

This is not a theory. I know many Filipino men who marry Japanese,
and one of my employees is a product of one. To be more precise,
he's Okinawan-Filipino and he's married to Japanese (main island). I
know another guy who looks distinctly Japanese, but he's also
Okinawan-Filipino, and this guy can talk Japanese like a native, then
turn around and talk Tagalog like a native. I have a neighbor who is
Japanese married to Filipina, and like in the West, there is a
Filipina bride market in Japan, along with a Thai and Chinese bride
market. These are targetted in the rural villages, for farmers having
problem finding wives.

My Japanese teacher in college is also half Filipina-half Japanese.

Rgds,

Chris

[Rat]

Yamane Kazuo wrote:
>
>
> "we find first that the three Japanese populations
> including Ainu and Ryukyuan clearly belong to a
> northeast Asian cluster group."
> (American Journal of Physical Antropology, April 1997. pp.437-446)

This is interesting, since the Ainu are a Caucasion race.
A fact that the Japanese government is not very proud of.
I'd love to see much more of this thread.
The mention of ocean currents and the sailing ability of
Malays is quite Fascinating. I hope this discussion is continued.

Rat

[cro...@kuentos.guam.net]

In <6n4g9o$o...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, "The Questioner" <conta...@thisnewsgroupplease.com> writes:
>
>My belief is that the Japanese "uniqueness" concept was an easy way to make
>Japan a military nation. It is always intellectually easier to send soldiers
>to vanquish "inferior" countries than to attack your brothers and sisters or
>parents, for that matter.
>
>Although the Malayo-Polynesian peoples are probably the world's most
>successful seafarers of the pre-modern age (Madagascar to Easter Island, New
>Zealand to Japan), the Japanese seem incapable of recognizing that without
>great difficulty, ancient Malays likely moved north from Luzon into Taiwan
>and continued island-hopping through the Ryukyus into the Japanese islands
>of Kyushu, Shikoku, Honshu.
>The northward Japan current additionally would aid any seafarer from the
>Philippines to Japan.
>
>My personal fields of study, knowledge and interest are history, linguistics
>and politics, but my knowledge of Malay history and culture is limited. I
>need your help in proving this theory. In Japan, one speaks of another
>Japanese looking "northern" or "southern". It seems OBVIOUS that the
>"southern" element (what pseudo-science at the disposal of the Japanese
>Right calls "Austronesian" or "Paleo-Chinese") is really Malay. The Japanese

I think your essay needs clarification. Austronesian is a blanket term
that includes Malays, Indonesians, Hawaiians, Filipinos, Micronesians,
Melanesians, Fijians, Thai, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Polynesians,
Southern Chinese---an amazing 3000 languages all in all. These peoples
are said to have originate from a common ancestral race. Hence
Austronesian, Austroasiatic, Austro-Tai are terms to describe this proto
race.

Anthropologists suggest that this proto race originated in the southern
coast of China. There is a name for this kingdom, and it has been
called Yuet, Yueh or Yue. It stretches all the way from the coast of
Shanghai to Guandong, including Fujien. The kingdom is probably
composed of hundreds of minor tribes, and hence the name Hundred Yuet.

Eventually, the Sino-Tibetan "Han" Chinese expanded from the China
interior, and as their empire grew, they warred with the Yuet (all
documented in Chinese history). The Yuet had three choices, all of
whom were taken. The first is to retreat to the sea. From the Fujien
coast, that means Taiwan and beyond into the Pacific. The second is to
retreat southward. That means Vietnam and this is how Vietnam got its
name---Yuet-Nam or Southern Yuet. The third is plain assimilation. The
Yuet that remained were assimilated into the Han proper, and lost all
their identities.

But not their genes---Southern Chinese like the Cantonese have genetic
traits much closer to southern Asians than they are to Northern Chinese,
which cluster much closer with Japanese, Koreans and Mongolians. It is
as if a dividing line is drawn on the Yangtze river. And not completely
lost in their language either, such as in the Cantonese and Fujienese
dialects.

The Fujienese dialect still has words that are Austronesian-Yuet in
origin. For example:

Tapo for male person, Tsabo or zabou for female. It sound like Tao in
Tagalog for person.

Be is for rice. The Yuet probably invented rice, and gave the word to
the Chinese language. In Tagalog, uncooked rice is bigas.

But the sailing boat is the Austronesian-Yuet's greatest invention. How
do I describe this boat? It is small, built on two pontoons or canoes,
with a structure between them. The ratio of sale to surface or water
resistance is unmatched by any sailing boat until the arrival of the
American Clipper sail ships in the 19th century. The speed of this boat
is uncanny. With it, the Austronesian people are able to spread as far
as Madagascar, Polynesia, Hawaii, Easter Island, and possibly even the
coasts of South America.

How fast is this boat? The Chamorros in Guam are said to have used
such vessels and arrive to the Philippines in ten days, outrunning
galleons. That is about the same distance from the north of the
Philippines to the south of Japan. Guam is actually a bit
closer to Japan than to the Philippines.

What is the name of this boat? Call it the Bun, Ban or Van. The name
of this boat probably gave the same name to a whole bunch of languages
in the region. In Tagalog it's called the Bangka. Strangely enough,
there is a town in Taiwan by that name, and its Chinese character is
that of a boat. The Moros in the southern Philippines call it the
Vinta.

In Hokkien, the boat is called Tsun or Zun. In Mandarin, Chuan. In
Japanese native kun reading (not the derived Chinese On reading), it's
fune or funai. Cut the second syllable, and you get fun.

Here is another. The Hokkien word 'tai'---to kill, does not exist in
the Mandarin language. But in Tagalog and Taiwan aboringine language,
it surfaces as patay and matay. In Japanese native (non
Chinese)reading, it seemed to evolve to 'tai' as "vs." or tatakai, to
"fight".

In Japanese, hi is native reading for fire and light; ka is the Chinese
based reading. But the Hokkienese call fire and light, he. The
Tagalogs call it apoy, but remarkably, the Hawaiians call it a-hi.

What are the cultural traits of the Austronesians?

They paint their faces. They carry babies on their backs. They have
the ability for mountain or hillside rice paddy cultivation. Mountain
rice paddy cultivation is present in southern China, Taiwan, even
Southern Japan, and with the most magnificent examples in the mountain
provinces of the northern Philippines. For music, they beat their
drums. I find a remarkable similarity in the way Chinese, Japanese,
Polynesians beat drums in their traditional cultures (like in the
Chinese Lion Dance).

Their religion is animistic. They believe places and things have
spirits and are sacred---lakes, strange trees and rocks. I see these
myths and beliefs practiced both in Japan (like in Shinto) and in the
Philippines as well. In Guam we have nature spirits we call the
Taotaomuna that live in big mangrove (balete) trees. In Tagalog, we
call them Tigbalang. Interestingly enough, has anyone watched the
animated file by Hayao Miyazaki called Tonari no Totoro (My Neighbor
Totoro)? Totoro happens to be the very idea of a Tigbalang-Taotaomuna.

Philippine history books describe three migrations that brought about
the pre-Spanish Filipino. The first are land bridge migrations that
brought the first aboringines. These people are probably Negroid. The
second are sea faring people called "Indonesians". They were fair
skinned. The third wave of sea faring people are correctly Malays.

Let's turn our attention to the second wave, who are credited with the
formation of the mountain rice terraces. Seems to me, the second
wave--fair skinned---came from the north, and are Austronesian-Yuet.

The migration of the Yuet followed these patterns. They would reach
Taiwan first. From there, you only have two ways to go---North or
South. To go north, is to follow the island footsteps of the Ryukus to
Okinawa and then southern Japan. To go south, you touch the
Philippines, and from there on Indonesia, Micronesia, Melanesia and to
Polynesia, as well as access to the Indian Ocean. \

What is the political organization of the Austronesian-Yuet? They
seemed to be divided into tribes by the hundreds. The Filipinos are
divided into hundreds of groups, each with their own dialect (Tagalog,
Pampangueno, Cebuano, etc,.) At present count, there are 700 Filipino
dialects or languages.

This unique characteristic is why the Han called the Yuet, the
"Hundred Yuet". What other place did the ancient Chinese described as
full of hundreds of tribes---the place they called Wa which stands for
"hundred"? Japan.

Is there any coincidences in the Japanese and Tagalog languages?
Japanese language is full of Chinese words, so we have to exclude these
words. Tagalog is full of Malaysian, Spanish, Chinese, even Indian
words (like Mahal), so we have to excluse these too. So what are we
left? A core vocabulary of short syllable vowel structured words with a
staccato sound---mata (eye), bato (rock), ina (mother), etc,.

Here are some coincidences or connections, depending on your viewpoint.

In Tagalog, to strike is "tira". In Japanese, it's "ataru".

In Japanese, something high or tall is "takai". In Tagalog, it's
"tangkad".

In Japanese, to ask is "tanomu". In Tagalog, it's tanong.

In Japanese, sincerely, really is "honto". In Tagalog it's "toto-o",
spoken with a very similar sound and inflection. Listen to how a
Japanese say and use honto and note the same how Filipinos use toto-o.

In Japanese, they scream "itai" in pain. Note how Filipinos scream
"aray" in pain. Same style, even the same inflection.

Japanese use the word "no" to denote possession. Filipinos use "ni" and
"ng" to denote possession, although the order is reversed. "Suzuki no
kuruma" vs. "kotse ni Suzuki".

In Japanese, "ano" is like refering this in a questioning way. It
sounds much like the way Filipinos use "ano" too. "Ano ba ito?"

Filipinos often use "na", "ka", "ba" to end their sentences,
particularly in question, they use "ka" and "ba". I noted that
Chamorros in Guam like to end with "ne".

As for the Malaysians, they are a later development, an evolution of the
Yuet that retreated to the jungles in the south and those that came from
the sea. But these are not connected to the Wa people of Japan, which
is based on the sea faring group of the Austronesian race. The Malays
are probably descended from those that fled to Vietnam.

I hope that explains something. What I presented both contradicts and
supports different parts of your theories.

Chris

[The Questioner]

In the 19th Century, when the European nations were dominant industrial,
military and imperialist powers, the Japanese and some either very stupid or
very crooked Westerners floated the idea that the Ainu are a
"Proto-Caucasoid" race. This is nonsense. I don't care for racial
categorizations because they are scientifically arbitrary and
extraordinarily easy to change depending on political whims. The Ainu are a
Siberian people, very distantly related to Manchurians and Koreans, and
somewhat less distantly related to other Northeast Asian tribal peoples,
such as the Evenki, Ulchi, Koryak, etc.

The Japanese created the "Caucasian Ainu" fiction to suggest that the
Japanese are deep-down, whites, and therefore, in the perverted context of
19th and 20th Century European and American colonialism, "entitled" to
occupy and plunder other peoples' countries in the name of "civilization."

Very few people of any nationality have had the opportunity to meet an Ainu,
and that serves the Japanese propaganda purposes well. They would like the
Koreans to disappear, and they would love it if the aboriginal Malay tribes
of Taiwan would disappear, so that nobody would ever have the chance to
study those cultures clearly, thoroughly and scientifically and then use
those data to better understand the ethnic, cultural and linguistic makeup
of the present and ancient Japanese.

Rat wrote in message <359677...@cris.com>...

[Azmik 5.9.4]

hells yeah!

cross-posting a topic in SOC.Culture.filipino that has nothing to do with:
"Chinese get ripped off in Indonesia"
"Communist Chinese in Malaysia"
"Rape victims in Indonesia are Chinese"

I appreciate posts like this one "Malay Japanese Origins". I won't respond
now since I have to think about it first.

AZMIK

[Azmik 5.9.4]

Yeah, there probably is ZERO Japanese women coming to the Philippines to
come and work/end up marrying Filipino men...and if there are it don't even
compare to all the Filipinas going to Nippon to get a job/husband.

AZMIK

DirtySickPig wrote in message <3595C74C...@worldnet.att.net>...

>Do you have an estimate of how many Filipino men are marrying Japanese
>women? What's your theory?
>

[Don Kirkman]

It seems to me I heard somewhere that The Questioner wrote in article
<6n4g9o$o...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>:

>This is a request for any and all contributions regarding available data and
>comments concerning the little-discussed and much-avoided issue of Japan's
>Malay ethnic origins.

[...]

>My personal fields of study, knowledge and interest are history, linguistics
>and politics, but my knowledge of Malay history and culture is limited. I
>need your help in proving this theory.

Perhaps you'd be on firmer ground if you were to 'test a hypothesis'
than to set out to '***prove*** a theory.'

> In Japan, one speaks of another
>Japanese looking "northern" or "southern". It seems OBVIOUS that the
>"southern" element (what pseudo-science at the disposal of the Japanese
>Right calls "Austronesian" or "Paleo-Chinese") is really Malay.

Not obvious at all. Isn't it entirely possible that both Japanese and
Malay (even assuming your hypotheis is correct) both derived from
earlier groups? IMO, looking at the current geopolitical structures of
Asia is useless for explaining the genetic dispersion of Asian people.

> The Japanese
>use language to twist and pervert reality and history. Sometimes they will
>speak of the Malay settlers as coming from "South China." This is a cute
>trick of deception. Malay islanders originally came from the mainland of
>Asia. Indeed, part of Malaysia is still on the Malay Peninsula, and even
>part of Thailand is ethnically Malay. But the Japanese aren't talking about
>Malays. They want you to think "Chinese." Just as they try to hide Korean
>origins by saying "China" or "Chinese culture" or "mainland' , "peninsular",
>"continental influences" "Manchurian" or "Altaic-Tungusic" they use the
>China-language game to deny their Malay origins. Their hope is that
>outsiders, especially in the West, know little about Asia except for Japan
>and China. Internally, they do nothing to encourage their citizens to learn
>Filipino, Bahasa, or Korean. They don't even teach English to their students
>well enough for most Japanese adults to get along successfully outside
>Japan.

Languages don't necessarily ride on the back of genetic dispersion.

[...]

I always recoil automatically from anyone with an obvious bias or strong
point of view **at the start** of their research.
--
Don
new...@abac.com

[The Questioner]

Thanks for your support, Iskandar, and thank you for your articles
encouraging us all to consider our common humanity before bigotry.

I'm not worried about being bumped off by the Japanese Right for one simple
reason: what I am saying is OBVIOUS. I don't have under my bed a land deed
written by early Kaya or Paekche Koreans in Japan proving their authorities.
I don't have under my bed what Kazuo Yamane referred to as a "small boat"
made by Malay settlers with a Kyushu license plate dated 4,000BC. I don't
have any skulls or slides containing blood samples or DNA strands. What I
have you have, and anyone else has: an ability to see the obvious.

What I am saying is not new. It is out there in academia, in university and
museum basements, in papers published, discussed, debated and sometimes
forgotten, accepted or silenced. Countless invaluable evidence is
undoubtedly kept under lock and key in Japan, but anyone knows that people
don't spontaneously generate from the soil. Most people know that humans
living on islands had to come from either other islands or the mainland. The
entrance routes around Japan, filled with stepping-stone islands across
Southeast Asia and Korea naturally would leave human settlers to Japan
eventually.

All one needs to do is to look at the faces of the Japanese to see Malay and
Korean, but first, one must know what Malays and Koreans look like. One
must know what a Malay and a Korean sound like when they speak their
languages. One must learn their histories and learn about their cultural
traditions. Then the Japanese seem as easily understandable as they should
be: a mix of the two. Japan is a timecapsule of some earlier traditions and
ways that have died out in the two metropolitan civilizations and in an
ideal world, it could be a cultural treasurehouse for not only the further
investigation of Japanese history, but East Asian history as well.

Getting rid of me would be a wasted bullet, because the world is learning
about Korea and the nations of Southeast Asia more and more every day. Even
with the horrible economic problems in Asia, the Japanese dream scenario of
Asia as a Japanese "coprosperity zone" (colony) will never be realized. The
world grows closer together. I only bring the obvious, and to the gaijin,
who in the Japanese Right's mindset, account for nothing.

My main limited goal here is to shame the international academic circles
into doing the job that they should have been doing for the last 50 years or
so at least. Instead, either being sad bootlicks, outright morons, or
endowment-hungry lackeys of the Japanese Right, they have been on the wrong
side of logic and history, and they have been criminally miseducating their
students, intentionally creating yet another confused generation repeating
19th Century Ainu "Proto-caucasoid" or vague "Austronesian theories" or
"Chinese Ice Man" frauds.

The time for looking at skulls and blood has past. The time to investigate
the Koreans, aboriginal Malay Taiwanese and northern Filipino tribes is now.
How could one understand Spain without having heard of Rome? This is the
ass-backwards way that Western scholarship has gone about studying Japan, as
if Japan were unique, as if it were INSANE or unnecessary to study the
peoples living in the likely routes from whence early Japanese settlers most
surely came.

The pressure to accept the arguments I have laid out is unbearable in the
West, the wall of lies is disintegrating, and it is a matter of years, not
decades, when all self-respecting Western scholars of Japanese history and
linguistics will accept much the same conclusions as I have written. The
Japanese Rightist theories you have been reading for years will be
universally accepted as the laughing-stock of the international academic
community, as well they should be. I am highly irrelevant to this process.
Without my participation, the collective weight of all the lies circulating
would soon bring the whole theory of Japanese uniqueness or mysterious
origins crashing to the floor like so much phlogisten.

The real battleground is Japan, among the Japanese. My contention is that
the race issue and Rightist -militaristic/nationalistic control over the
educational system go hand in hand with Japan's supposed inability to have
free and open international trade, to reform Japan's financial system, and
to reform the political system in such a way as to create the real democracy
that the Japanese people need and deserve. The Japanese public, lied to from
infancy about "We Japanese" are told about their superiority so that
whenever they see their system of government is screwing them into the
ground they will at least be able to say "I am Japanese-- which is better
than ...(fill in the blank)." Then they can either get drunk or play with
another electronic gadget.

The Japanese student is shaped into a myth-believing, obedient order-taker.
Let's see how long the Japanese Authorities can hold up their system of
lies, and how much longer the average Japanese will take it. I personally
believe it will come crashing down suddenly, like the way the Soviet Union
evaporated. Behind all the meetings of bureaucrats is a sweat, a long deep
sweat that no matter how much money they could scrape up, the system is
going to collapse.

Will the Japanese be intellectually prepared for the Japan that will emerge
after the collapse? Will the world?

Iskandar Baharuddin wrote in message <3596235A...@highway1.com.au>...

>The Questioner wrote:
>>
>> This is a request for any and all contributions regarding available data
and
>> comments concerning the little-discussed and much-avoided issue of
Japan's
>> Malay ethnic origins.
>>

>snipped with great reluctance.

>>
>> To learn about Korean origins of the Japanese read Professor Wontack
Hong's
>> book online free at
http://iias.snu.ac.kr/wthong/paekche/eng/paekch_e.html
>> You will need to download the adobe acrobat reader, which is also free,
at
>> http://www.adobe.com
>

>One of the best postings I have ever seen.
>
>You will probably be hunted down and killed, but keep up the
>good work anyway.
>

[Azmik 5.9.4]

If there are Filipino men/Nihonjin women marraiges are their offspring also
regarded as "Japinos"? How about "Filinese"?

[Azmik 5.9.4]

FASCINATING!

[The Questioner]

Dear Chris:
Wow! This is what I was hoping to see. What a wealth of exciting information
you have discussed! Your Tagalog-Japanese linguistic pairing clearly prove
what I believed, that the settlement of ancient Japan was not by some
mysterious disappeared races, but rather is closely and completely related
to Japan's neighbors.

The one concern I have is that in explaining the mainland origins of the
Malays, Polynesians, negritos, and other Pacific island peoples, Japanese
Nationalists will deliberately use the ancient history of Southeast Asia to
refer to the peopling of Japan. The Japanese want the world to think they
are Chinese, not Malay/Austronesian, not Korean. The key is that the people
settling Japan came from the Philippines and Taiwan, NOT China.

If we were to explain the origins of the Celtic Irish on Ireland, we could
say that France was occupied by Celtic Gauls, and Britain was occupied by
Celtic Britons (Welsh), and that naturally, island-hopping, in time Celtic
tribes went to Ireland. It would be correct furthermore to say that Irish
Celts are related to the Albanians, Iranians, Tajiks and the now nonexistent
Tocharians of Central Asia because they all were Indo-Europeans, and that
anciently Indo-Europeans were likely related to Semites, and these large
superfamilies are even more distantly related to Altaic and Tungusic
peoples, thereby making the Mongol, the Hebrew and the Dane very distant
linguistic cousins, but to do so would have nothing to do directly with the
Celtic peopling of Ireland.

My concern is that the most important data you mention, concerning tangible
and unmistakable Malay-Japanese linguistic links of relatively recent and
direct contact might be obscured in a very separate and exciting discussion
of how or why Asians left the mainland of Southeast Asia in very ancient
times.

The Chinese are the great absorbers of neighboring cultures. That there is a
Malay or Austronesian substratum in the Southeast China people should be
obvious, but this does not mean that the Malays who came to Japan were
Chinese, just as the Tajiks of Central Asia never came to Ireland, even
though there is an ancient and distant linkage between Celtic and
Iranian-speaking peoples. Japanese Rightists keep trying to take a very
ancient story to explain their relatively recent history. This is purely to
deceive the world into thinking that the "southern" element is Chinese, NOT
MALAY.

A few minor points: The Koreans also carry children on their back and I
believe Japanese shintoism is heavily pre-Buddhist Kaya Korean shamanism,
but undoubtedly there has to be a strong Malay component in the local
Japanese religious practices wherever Malays were in large enough numbers.

Language is a weird thing. Sometimes pronunciations seem to suggest links
when there are none, while sometimes unrelated-sounding words can suggest no
relationship. Word borrowing can mislead also. The key is for overwhelming
and consistent evidence to be produced. A linguist who is trying to
accomplish some sort of political purpose can, for example "prove" that the
closely related languages of English and German are unrelated by noting that
English says "dog" and "bird" while German says "hund" and "vogel." One has
to point out, though, that German also has "dachshund" (doghound) and
English has "fowl." Such oddities as dialect, randomness of example and
soundchange have to be taken into account when analyzing Japanese and
Ryukyuan ancient and modern dialects, otherwise, conveniently, studies could
be easily produced to suggest no relationship between Japanese and its
neighboring languages. Chris has got the ball rolling very well.

Let's see more.

Malay words, Korean grammar = Japanese

Great and exciting work. Please everyone, contribute your observations.
Nobody has ever had the decency to ask the Filipinos their opinions on
Japanese culture, but they are a potentially case-making storehouse of
evidence.

cro...@kuentos.guam.net wrote in message <6n5vkn$18s$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...

[The Questioner]

I am glad you recoil at anyone, Don, who starts out with an obvious bias. My
problem being a human being with blood pumping into that tiny wedge of cells
called my brain is that when I open my eyes and receive stimuli I
automatically draw some conclusion. I reserve the right to say that I was
wrong, that I can be wrong, and that I shall certainly be wrong about things
again. My concern is the amazing ability of Western Asia buffs ("scholars?")
to accept or ENTERTAIN THE POSSIBILITY for years and years, years that
become decades which become centuries, nonsensical, illogical Japanese
Rightist fictions. It is OK for one afternoon while you're drinking a cool
beer on the beach to talk about icebridges across the tropical Pacific, and
about the proto-godknowswhothehelltheywere beings who supposedly wandered
off the icefloes and who became the Japanese. But stuff like this gets real
energy and discussion, while CONVENIENTLY and CRIMINALLY, the, let's not say
OBVIOUS, let's say "reasonably possible" arguments are very carefully swept
aside, strategically poo-pooed or censored.

We can all get into the argument that the Japanese Right currently want us
to follow. We can all wander off as far from Japan in time and distance as
we want. We can discuss how Australopithicus and Neanderthals maybe perhaps
coulda geewhiz mighta met. We could talk about the time when monkeys started
to use tools all too well and learned how to collect taxes, the sons of
bitches. We could talk about the distant relationships between all the races
of humanity, about common ancestors of the great-grandparent ancestors of
peoples nobody has ever seen, especially if they are no where near the
Japanese home islands, Korea, Taiwan or the Philippines. My contention is
that the Japanese Authorities and Western croney "scholarship" have confused
the discussion away from the knowable and observable to distant, unprovable,
unknowable and unrelated issues and events on the mainland of Asia occurring
tens of thousands of years ago.

When I go to Japan I see Japanese people. I cannot help but see they look
and sound and act like combinations of Koreans and Malays. I cannot help but
see their material culture, their arts, their architecture, closely
resembles their neighbors'. I know that Koreans and Filipinos and Taiwanese
aboriginals are real and are alive, God bless them.

I'm going to tell you a funny story. When I was in school, I remember
hearing about the Catalans, a Romance Latin group of speakers centered
between roughly Alicante and Barcelona in Spain and Perpignan in France.
Whenever I would ask my Spanish or French teachers what Catalan was like,
they'd say "it's a combination of Spanish and French." When I had my chance,
I did some study of Catalan. It wasn't a "combination" of Spanish and
French, it was another Romance language descended from the same Latin
Vulgate brought west along the Mediterranean by Romans. Catalan had its own
literature and Catalonians have their own civilization. But I could never
know that if I had listened to my teachers, who weren't Catalan-haters. They
were just ignorant. My point here is that talking about common Tungusic and
Austronesian ancestors is all nice, but in the hands of Japanese
nationalists it is a weapon against truth.

The Japanese will not say their parents are Malay and Korean, but only
because they have been presssed in that direction, are they begrudingly
willing to entertain, on their terms only, some sort of vague discussion
that suggests "flying carpet theories." They tried it with the Koreans,
saying that the Tungusics were pre-Korean and/or invaders through Korea who,
undetected by Kogoryo Koreans in the North, and Paekche, Kaya and Shilla
Koreans in the South, made it on boats, undetected, to Japan...to establish,
bizarrely enough...an amazing replica of a 5th Century A.D. Korean society.
The problem with the Koreans is that they kept records. They recorded every
Jurchen, Malgal, Khitan invader in the last 2000 years. Nobody ever made it
far into Korea, nobody to the south and on to Japan. So the Korean story is
being accepted. Now the weapons are being turned on the Malays. Na, it
COULDN'T have been Filipinos who ruled Japan. Anything but that. So we
return to another flying carpet or "common earlier ancestor" (who wasn't
Filipino).

Doug, if you are on the islands of Sardinia or Sicily and the people are
speaking languages that bear an amazing relationship to the nearby Italian
dialects of Italy, doesn't it stand to reason that we should FIRST
investigate the closest geographical relationships? The Japanese rightist/
Western croney "scholarship" method would be to open-mindedly examine the
origins not of the Italian Latins nor even of the Etruscans, but to venture
into discussions of the origins of the non-Indo European Etruscans'
ancestors, perhaps back to Asia Minor. Yes, and we could discuss Trojans and
Hittites and Mesopotamian and Central Asian steppe peoples from the farthest
reaches of time. And if anyone is still alive at the conclusion of the
discussion, perhaps that person could remind us that we never got around to
discussing why the Sicilians and Sardinians speak a form of Italian.

THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT. This is not an intellectual issue, but rather a
political war, Doug. I hate to sound like Oliver Stone or an episode of the
X-Files, but this is how big evil nations conduct propaganda campaigns.

I wasn't born concluding what I conclude. It just seemed that over the years
the obvious overwhelmed me at the expense of the vague, unlikely,
far-fetched and outright lies. I wish I could be so openminded a person as
to reserve judgement until other theories could be shown, but I do not wish
for the Japanese Right to have free rein in my country's universities or in
the minds of my country's students. That is what the horribly inept and
corrupt U.S. Asian Studies programs has done, and this is what its
professors will have to address.

Don Kirkman wrote in message <35a69c90...@news.newsguy.com>...

>It seems to me I heard somewhere that The Questioner wrote in article
><6n4g9o$o...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>:
>

>>This is a request for any and all contributions regarding available data
and
>>comments concerning the little-discussed and much-avoided issue of Japan's
>>Malay ethnic origins.
>

>[...]

>
>>My personal fields of study, knowledge and interest are history,
linguistics
>>and politics, but my knowledge of Malay history and culture is limited. I
>>need your help in proving this theory.
>

>Perhaps you'd be on firmer ground if you were to 'test a hypothesis'

>than to set out to '***prove*** a theory.'

>
>> In Japan, one speaks of another
>>Japanese looking "northern" or "southern". It seems OBVIOUS that the
>>"southern" element (what pseudo-science at the disposal of the Japanese
>>Right calls "Austronesian" or "Paleo-Chinese") is really Malay.
>

>Not obvious at all. Isn't it entirely possible that both Japanese and
>Malay (even assuming your hypotheis is correct) both derived from
>earlier groups? IMO, looking at the current geopolitical structures of
>Asia is useless for explaining the genetic dispersion of Asian people.
>

>> The Japanese
>>use language to twist and pervert reality and history. Sometimes they will
>>speak of the Malay settlers as coming from "South China." This is a cute
>>trick of deception. Malay islanders originally came from the mainland of
>>Asia. Indeed, part of Malaysia is still on the Malay Peninsula, and even
>>part of Thailand is ethnically Malay. But the Japanese aren't talking
about
>>Malays. They want you to think "Chinese." Just as they try to hide Korean
>>origins by saying "China" or "Chinese culture" or "mainland' ,
"peninsular",
>>"continental influences" "Manchurian" or "Altaic-Tungusic" they use the
>>China-language game to deny their Malay origins. Their hope is that
>>outsiders, especially in the West, know little about Asia except for Japan
>>and China. Internally, they do nothing to encourage their citizens to
learn
>>Filipino, Bahasa, or Korean. They don't even teach English to their
students
>>well enough for most Japanese adults to get along successfully outside
>>Japan.
>

[Rat]

The Questioner wrote:
>
> The Japanese created the "Caucasian Ainu" fiction to suggest that the
> Japanese are deep-down, whites, and therefore, in the perverted context of
> 19th and 20th Century European and American colonialism, "entitled" to
> occupy and plunder other peoples' countries in the name of "civilization."

The Ainu are aboriginal Caucasion people native to the northern
islands of Japan. The Japanese did not invent the idea that
the Ainu are Caucasion, and to suggest this is ridiculous.
The Ainu in appearence are obviously not of Asian origin as they
have absolutly no mongoloid traits at all. Ainu have promenent
noses, round eyes, brownish wavey to curly hair, and heavy beards.
The Ainu look nothing like Koreans, Manchurians, Koryak or Eskimos.

The Japanese have always discriminated heavily against the Ainu,
and consider them inferior. The idea that the Japanese decended
from the Ainus is not only erroneous, but offensive to the Japanese.
The Ainu have been forced to adopt japanese dress, thier culture
has been wiped out, they are forbidden to speak thier native tongue.
Little is known about the ainu outside of Japan because the Japanese
to not want it to be known that the Ainu are the original people to
inhabit the islands, and have been displaced by the later arriving
Asian peoples who have become the Japanese.

I also feel that the way the Ainu are treated in Japan are a good
indicator of how Japan feels about Caucasion people around the world.

Also, please understand that when I say "Japanese", I am not
refering to individuals, but to the Japanese government.

Rat

[The Questioner]

The amazing craziness of the Japanese nationalists is that they are capable
of simultaneously discriminating against people and claiming their legacy.
They have no problem living within these contradictions of decency and
reality.

The Japanese murdered Queen Min of Korea. This is well documented. They
hated Koreans viscerally, told Westerners that the Koreans were completely
different from them, but when they took power in Korea they did so using a
vague statement that they came from the same root and therefore had ancient
rights to rule Korea. Their creation of the Manchukuo puppet state, with Pu
Yi married to a Japanese aristocrat was also to eventually usurp that
domain. All this went on while the Japanese conducted biological warfare
experiments on the Manchu, Chinese, Korean, Mongol and other residents of
Manchuria. They spoke in extraordinarily racist terms about the Filipinos
even as they said they came to liberate them from the Americans. Their
"scholars" spoke of "Chinese" civilization in Japan as Chinese people were
being bayonetted and raped by Japanese troops in China. They extinguish the
Ainu, overexaggerating their alleged hairiness to suggest they are savages,
near apes, while they tell Englishmen, Germans and Americans that they are
"Proto-Caucasoid" in order to suggest that the Japanese themselves are
nearly Caucasian.

While you may have recognized that Japanese might be racist against
Caucasians, they (is it just the "government, really?") will often go to
great lengths to convince themselves and the rest of the world that they are
more Caucasian than Asian. Only about five years ago or so I remember either
a Japanese TV show or article that insinuated that the Japanese were really
a European nation based on Japan's proximity to Russia! Well, if we have no
trouble eliminating entirely the millennia of Asian-Siberian racial
components of the Russian Far East, then I guess an INSANE PERSON might
agree with that argument. Russians, 5,000 miles or so to the west are
European and Siberia is technically under the control of Moscow, which is in
Europe. And north of Hokkaido is Russian-occupied land. Therefore the
Japanese are European.

Mental illness is called mental illness because it is not rational.

Rat wrote in message <3596F1...@cris.com>...

[Tansong Isda]

Robato Yao wrote:

> The rationale is much different for the Filipinos than to the
> Filipinas. The Filipinas probably to get a better life with a husband
> who is more financially secure and a way to get out of their life in
> the Philippines. The Japanese women marrying Filipinos are doing it
> because I think they find them very "romantic"---Filipinos are
> literally Asian latinos.
>
> Rgds,
>
> Chris

They are definitely a lot more responsive towards the "needs" of women, of w/c
Japanese men lack. Life isn't all work you know, I know this, because of what I
gathered through my travels. Japanese men doesn't show any romantic inclinations
at all.
This is sad because, as Asia becomes 'Global' travel will enable all cultures to
learn from one another, the Japanese social fabric will tear and only time will
tell whether it stand the changes to come. Half Japanese and whatever someday
will have to be accepted as Japanese. My cousin who married with a Japanese woman
is being shunned by the father but not by the females in the family. Very sad
indeed!

[K.Jiro]

The interesting thing is that everyone is afraid to
>say "Malay."

Oh, I didn't know that.
I'm not an expert on this topic, but the books I read say that mitochondria
DNA shows close relationship between Malaysians and the Jomon people.
And the research('89-'92) was financially assisted by Ministry of Education.
I don't care at all whether my ancestors were Koreans, Malaysians or
Neanderthals.

[Robato Yao]

On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 23:06:14, "The Questioner"
<conta...@thisnewsgroupplease.com> wrote:

> Dear Chris:
> Wow! This is what I was hoping to see. What a wealth of exciting information
> you have discussed! Your Tagalog-Japanese linguistic pairing clearly prove
> what I believed, that the settlement of ancient Japan was not by some
> mysterious disappeared races, but rather is closely and completely related
> to Japan's neighbors.
>
> The one concern I have is that in explaining the mainland origins of the
> Malays, Polynesians, negritos, and other Pacific island peoples, Japanese
> Nationalists will deliberately use the ancient history of Southeast Asia to
> refer to the peopling of Japan. The Japanese want the world to think they
> are Chinese, not Malay/Austronesian, not Korean. The key is that the people
> settling Japan came from the Philippines and Taiwan, NOT China.

This is odd. You are making a blanket assumption that all Japanese
want to ascribe their origins to Chinese. The impression I am getting
is that Japanese themselves have different views on this.
Some scholars look to the Austronesian theory. Others to the
Korean-Yayaoi connection. Others look to a Siberian connection, while
others to a Chinese connection. Don't blanket the Japanese into
thinking they have the same views. As a matter of fact, my impression
with the rightist is that they don't want to subcribe to a Chinese
origin either. As for the scholars, they are trying to study the
Asian neighbors for their origins, not trying to deny it. The web
links in trying to research about Austronesian data often lead to web
sites in Japan. Japanese Nationalists didn't cook up the term
Austronesian either. That came from Western anthropologists, and the
intense interest on Austronesian heritage is also shared in HK and
Taiwan, where some people are beginning to wake up to their
aboringinal past.

I never said that Jomon came from the Philippines. I said that the
early Philippine settlers came from an Austronesian race that
originated in the southern coasts of China and populated Taiwan, and
moved up from there. The originating source of these people are still
in China, but they are not Han either, since the Han or Sino Tibetan
originated somewhere in the central regions of China near Tibet. What
I am saying is that the ancient Filipino settlers and the Jomon may be
related with a common ancestor, not that the Jomon descended from
these ancient Filipinos.

Like I said I don't believe the Rightists want to subscribe to even a
Chinese originating theory, although that is something Chinese
nationalists simply say.

What I did say and pointed out, that there is a connection between the
Wa, the Yuet and the ancient Filipinos and Taiwanese, and they all
originated in the Chinese coasts. I laid out the linguistic
connection for the Holo word "tapo" to the Tagalog "tao", for example.
I also noticed a legacy reminder of that word in Japanese when the
syllable -to is repeatedly used to refer to people---hito, otoko,
imoto, ototo.

The Chinese element even to the Kanji pronounciations in Japanese
culture has been consistently demonstrate a more southern bent. In my
Hokkien dialect, I use words like "kantan" to refer to simple, "sekai"
to refer to world society, "sikan" for time. They're more similar to
the equivalent Japanese, kantan, sekai and jikan than to their
Mandarin equivalents.

You can try to practice the "look" approach. How people look more
closely to one another. The Chinese are very varied in their
appearance, yet when I travel to China and Taiwan, I consistently find
that people in Jiangsu (Shanghai and Yangtze river mouth) and Fujien
provinces look more consistently closer to Japanese as well as
Taiwanese. I think it;s much harder to tell a Taiwanese or Fujienese
from a Japanese than between Japanese and Korean. The Chinese in
these provinces are still very light and fair skinned, perhaps with a
hint of Malay but not as strong as with the Cantonese. It can mean
that the people have a greater mixture of Han or Altaic, or the Yuet
themselves also vary in appearance, with the southern variation of
Yuet have a more darker complexion and Malay look, while the northern
Yuet are more fair.

If early Yuet peoples living in Jiangsu-Fujien coasts migrated to
Japan and contributed to the Wa population, that connection never
halted even when these coasts are Sinicized into China, even to the
present day, because these coasts remain vital trade and immigration
routes to Japan simply because of their position and proximity. Look
at all the Japanese vessels that come and go in Shanghai harbor.
Hundreds of years ago, it's still the same story. Thousands of years
aog, it's still the same story. The temples of Kuannin (Kannon to
Japanese) is erected on one of the most outermost islands of this
coast---Budoushan island---highlighting the ancient passage of Buddist
scholars and monks between Japan and China.

[Robato Yao]

On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 21:25:22, "Azmik 5.9.4" <degu...@juno.com>
wrote:

> Yeah, there probably is ZERO Japanese women coming to the Philippines to
> come and work/end up marrying Filipino men...and if there are it don't even

No they don't. They meet up with the Filipino men while the man is
working in Japan or they meet the Filipino men while they are on
tourist visit in the Philippines (or Guam---where many such marriages
occur.)

> compare to all the Filipinas going to Nippon to get a job/husband.
>

The rationale is much different for the Filipinos than to the

Filipinas. The Filipinas probably to get a better life with a husband
who is more financially secure and a way to get out of their life in
the Philippines. The Japanese women marrying Filipinos are doing it
because I think they find them very "romantic"---Filipinos are
literally Asian latinos.

Rgds,

Chris

> AZMIK

[Robato Yao]

On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 22:51:18, "Azmik 5.9.4" <degu...@juno.com>
wrote:

>
> If there are Filipino men/Nihonjin women marraiges are their offspring also
> regarded as "Japinos"? How about "Filinese"?
>
>

Oh they're simply called mestizos or mestizas, even if that term was
originally used to describe Filipino-Spanish mixes. Nowadays, they're
just used to describe any sort of mix, period.

Rgds,

Chris

[Eric Hildum]

Not quite, they are considered caucasiod, not caucasian. There is a bit of
a difference...

Rat wrote:

> Yamane Kazuo wrote:
> >
> >
> > "we find first that the three Japanese populations
> > including Ainu and Ryukyuan clearly belong to a
> > northeast Asian cluster group."
> > (American Journal of Physical Antropology, April 1997. pp.437-446)
>
> This is interesting, since the Ainu are a Caucasion race.
> A fact that the Japanese government is not very proud of.
> I'd love to see much more of this thread.
> The mention of ocean currents and the sailing ability of
> Malays is quite Fascinating. I hope this discussion is continued.
>
> Rat

--
---------------------------
Eric Hildum
Eric....@Japan.NCR.COM

[Yamane Kazuo]

In an article, conta...@thisnewsgroupplease.com ("The Questioner")
writes:

>OK, Kazuo. First thing's first. We all agree that the Japanese
>are of "South East Asian" origin in part. Good.

First of all, I meant no such thing. After refuting your naive
Japanese cover up claim.
I proceeded by saying South East Asian theory "began to be
contradicted by recent genetic studies..."
Your biggest problem right now is trying to refute this. Take your
time.

>I do not give a rat's fuzzy ass about any Japanese theory or Western theory
>for that matter that writes the Malays out of Japanese history. If the
>Malays were not the people who gave the Japanese half their language and
>gene pool, then the Japanese Right should be required to name them, their
>specific site of departure and the location of their modern descendants.

>Surely we are not expected to believe forever that the
>"southern" element is a race entirely unique to Japan, but

>absent in Taiwan, the Philippines and elsewhere.

Sly diversion.
Whether Japan's earliest people came to Japan via planet Mars or talk
in
mutchkin language we still need to compare their genes like in case of
proving
parent child relation.
So far, in recent terms, researchers are telling us that,
Japanese/Ainu/Ryukuans/Jomon are North East Asian group.
If you object, then you should know better than weasel around so much.

>Kazuo, are the Southeast Asian settlers of Japan who had to
>come all the way through the Philippines and Taiwan and the
>Ryukyus but who were not Malay? If they were not Malay,
>who are they and where are their
>descendants now? The only other navigating people to come off the Asian
>mainland before the Malays and inhabit areas near Japan were the Negritos.
>Are they the Japanese ancestors? If not, why not?

Hey monsieur, no need to make a simple matter more complicated.
In order to figure who where the Japan's early inhabitants, such as
Jomon people,
just study those genetic reports first.
Another bad habit that you have is attributing Japan's earliest
inhabitants,
Jomon people, with Malay people. Frankly, there's no way that Malays
could
be Jomon for the later goes further back at least 12,000 years
while Malays were more of later reference.
On the other hand, if you meant Malays' ancestors then do say so.

>Are the writers of history books, university professors and scholars of
>Asian history, not to mention the Japanese themselves, expected to have to
>wait until "proof" surfaces? I maintain the proof is obvious, and what is
>not obvious, is deliberately buried or surpressed.

If it's that simple then no one would be arguing.

>The Ryukyuan (Okinawan) people are like the Japanese: a mix of Korean and
>Malay.

Preaching your tired old theory.
Those new genetic studies tells a whole different story about the
Ryukuans.
Like for Ainu people, the study place them with the north east Asian
group.

1. "the three Japanese populations including Ainu and Ryukyuan
CLEARLY belong to a northeast Asian cluster group."
(American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1997 April, pp.
437-446)

2. "modern Ainu and Ryukyuan (Okinawa) populations
ARE DIRECT DESCENDANTS of the Jomon people..."
(American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1997 April, pp.
437-446)

For a good reason. Ryukyuans tend to have more of Immunoglobulin Gm
ag,
an indicator of Northern Mongoloid group.
Add them up.

[Rat]

Eric Hildum wrote:
>
> Not quite, they are considered caucasiod, not caucasian. There is a bit of
> a difference...
>

Point taken, my mistake.
My point is that the Ainu more closely resemble the
Tajiks of Central Asia, who are also caucasoid, then
they do Koreans, Koryak or Eskimos etc etc.
While "The Questioner" wants to insist that the Ainu
are of mongoloid stock, closely related to the groups
mentioned above.

Rat

[The Questioner]

They are INCORRECTLY considered "caucasoid" by people who are IDIOTS! Don't
you understand that racial terms are completely made up? You can call them
Caucasoids or Proto-Caucasoids or Donny Osmonds for all that scientific fact
means to you. They are Asian, specifically Siberian people. When will
Western anthropologists sit down with the rest of the people of the world
and apologize for their incorrect, ignorant and racist past and present
classifications of the non-European peoples of the world?

Would you consider the Irish-American actress Shannon Doherty "Asianoid?"
She kind of looks "Oriental," in her eyes, cheekbones, straight dark hair,
even in her physique. Kazuo Yamane might even have some DNA evidence on
this. :)

Next time you think a person native to the farthest reaches of eastern
Siberia is a "Caucasoid" consider calling those in the farthest extreme of
Western Europe "Asianoids." Since some of my ancestors come from the west
coast of Ireland and were "Asianoids" I am thinking now I should stake my
claim to Japanese citizenship.

The terminology anthropologists in the West are still based on 19th Century
Eurocentric "scientific" models, which were NOT scientific, but forerunners
of hitlerian aryan racism. For some interesting discussion of this issue,
read Jacob Bronowski's "Knowledge or Certainty." A physicist by training,
he wrote about how science in Europe became perverted into the tool of the
Nazi propaganda apparatus. There still, unfortunately, is an obsession in
European and American anthropological circles to sit around and measure
skulls and draw conclusions. Remarkably, Europeans always seem to be fairly
treated in their studies.

If you want to see how in 1998 scientific discovery is perverted to serve
Eurocentric racism, read the New York Times Science Section every week,
particularly the columns by John Winfred Noble. You would swear you were
back in 1922. They once had a sketch of Indus Valley people, living
thousands of years ago in present-day Pakistan. The people in the 1998 NY
Times drawing looked like dark-haired, fair-skinned Norwegians, although the
artifacts unearthed clearly are sculptures of people whose features looked
Dravidian in bone-structure with Mongol-type eyes. Even though any reader
could see in the artifact what the Indus Valley people looked like, "truth"
is created by a writer, an editor and a cartoonist who want to see Western
Europeans at the center of all great civilizations and history, and who then
set out to force their lies on the rest of us.

Speaking of hoaxes, did the National Geographic Society ever apologize to
its readers in the U.S. and to the Filipino people for their at least
passive acceptance of the Tassady as "primitive stone age peoples" in the
Filipino jungles? Even at the time of the Tassady hoax there were sceptics
and it seemed highly unlikely, but they put on that TV special, and pumped
out their literature, and undoubtedly there were a good number of American
and other western "scientists", "sociologists" and "anthropologists" who
were all too willing to pronounce these people "stone age
primitives"...simply because they wanted to believe it, simply because they
had been taught to believe that non-Europeans are lesser people than
themselves.

Eric Hildum wrote in message <35971805...@Japan.NCR.COM>...

>Not quite, they are considered caucasiod, not caucasian. There is a bit of
>a difference...
>

>Rat wrote:
>
>> Yamane Kazuo wrote:
>> >
>> >

>> > "we find first that the three Japanese populations
>> > including Ainu and Ryukyuan clearly belong to a
>> > northeast Asian cluster group."
>> > (American Journal of Physical Antropology, April 1997. pp.437-446)

>>
>> This is interesting, since the Ainu are a Caucasion race.
>> A fact that the Japanese government is not very proud of.
>> I'd love to see much more of this thread.
>> The mention of ocean currents and the sailing ability of
>> Malays is quite Fascinating. I hope this discussion is continued.
>>

[The Questioner]

I did not say the Ainu are of "mongoloid stock", whatever the hell that
means. They are Siberian people. What do you call a North American Navajo?
Do you want to say "Mongoloid?" There are some Siberians and American
natives who look more "Mongoloid", such as the Inuit (Eskimos of Siberia,
Alaska, Canada and Greenland), but there is a huge diversity of appearances
of people in Siberia and the Americas. Saying they are "Caucasoid" I feel is
a way of robbing them of their existence. It would be like saying a
Frenchman is not quite enough Italian, or a Finn is not quite enough Turk.
Such remarks are correctly viewed as wrong or ignorant or bigotted, and so
should the classification of Siberian native peoples as "Caucasoid." They
are themselves. If you don't know what a Siberian or a Mayan or a Guarani or
a Taino or a Seminole or an Iroquois or a Chukchi or a Goldi, find out.

We are all suffering the sins of earlier generations' racist
classifications. The old racial terms ought to be scrapped. They were based
overwhelmingly on colonialists, neo-colonialists and "Explorer Club" type
institutions where, frankly, talk among whites about non-whites was always
more desired than actually getting on a boat and actually meeting and
talking with the peoples of the world AS EQUALS.

Once again and finally, I hold that the "Caucasoid" or "Proto-Caucasoid"
remarks about the Ainu are pure racist ruses initiated for political
purposes and have no true scientific justification.

And as an "Asianoid" I ought to know. :)
Rat wrote in message <359739...@cris.com>...

>Eric Hildum wrote:
>>
>> Not quite, they are considered caucasiod, not caucasian. There is a bit
of
>> a difference...
>>
>

>Point taken, my mistake.
>My point is that the Ainu more closely resemble the
>Tajiks of Central Asia, who are also caucasoid, then
>they do Koreans, Koryak or Eskimos etc etc.
>While "The Questioner" wants to insist that the Ainu
>are of mongoloid stock, closely related to the groups
>mentioned above.
>
>Rat
>
>> Rat wrote:
>>
>> >

[The Questioner]

Once again, you rely on fake studies prepared by ignorant Westerners rather
than ask yourself why so many modern Tagalog words sound and look very
similar to modern Japanese words. That's just Tagalog. Imagine if all the
effort your side has put into blood sampling and DNA testing were put into
conducting a study of northern Filipino and aboriginal Taiwanese dialects,
and then comparing those words with modern Okinawan and Japanese local
dialects. Wouldn't you agree that this is at least a highly interesting find
that we have encountered in this newsgroup?

And that is just off the shelf, MODERN language comparison. Just based on
this newsgroup, we have uncovered quite a few examples proving Japanese as
"Malay words and sounds with Korean grammar" . Tell me, why is it not
sufficient to show that if these linguistic phenomena exist in Okinawa and
Japan on such a massive scale, then the inhabitants are ALSO likely Malays
and Koreans?

Kazuo, we could end the madness right now. Or do you think we should all go
out and take a blood test?
Frankly, I think that if the linguistic proof isn't enough, coupled with the
fact that the Japanese look Korean and Malay and happen to be neighbors of
Korea and Malay-lands, then you might be rabid.

I am concerned that you might have been bitten by a bat when you were going
down into the smelly cave where you are hiding all your DNA studies.

Yamane Kazuo wrote in message <35972760...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...

[mark]

Amazing. The Questioner's posts are simply extraordinary.
We are all learning so much with his analysis. I had never
really been able to put it all together, as well as he has for
us. Thanks to The Questioner, we have been finally able to
identify the origins of the current Japanese Rightest-Filpina
conspiracy!
Furthermore, I for one would never have been able to so
succinctly link our misjudgement of the origins of the Ainu with
Western scholar prejudices.
He owes it to us to continue this thread, for us all to benefit
more from his insights. We welcome him back any time into
soc.culture.japan. And, just as soon as he finds his way out of
the world's newest and largest airport, in the jungle, we hope
that he continues to find more evidence that continues to prove,
inconclusively, why the Japanese want to hide the fact that they
decended from Malaysians.
mark msi...@msn.com

The Questioner wrote in message
<6n7i2g$8...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>...

[ra...@jps.net]

Excuse my late participation into this thread, but I just read a couple of
posts on it and became curious.

My immediate question, directed to the originator of the thread, is if he is
aware of any glottochronology and lexicostatistic studies between the Japanese
language and those of neighboring Asian languages. I ask because I have never
ventured outside of Malayo Polynesiane linguistics in my studies.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

[DirtySickPig]

For all its worth, my maternal great-grandmother was supposedly
Filipino-Korean. She survived the Japanese occupation of Manila in WW2. One of
the strongest family lore was her disgust, which she carried to her dying day,
that entire units of the Imperial Japanese Army occupation troops were either
conscripted or mercenary Koreans. Only her ability to speak Korean saved her
from many ugly situations. She claimed they were more atrocious than Japanese
troops. Another survivor or military historian should be able to shed light on
this phenomenon. I am in possession of several daguerreotypes of Japanese
occupation army officers posing with Filipino Masons of the Scottish Rite!
Their origin was obscured over three generations before me.

The Questioner wrote:

> (snip) The Japanese murdered Queen Min of Korea. This is well documented. They

>
> hated Koreans viscerally, told Westerners that the Koreans were completely
> different from them, but when they took power in Korea they did so using a
> vague statement that they came from the same root and therefore had ancient
> rights to rule Korea. Their creation of the Manchukuo puppet state, with Pu
> Yi married to a Japanese aristocrat was also to eventually usurp that

> domain. (snip)

[ke...@jps.net]

In article <3596F1...@cris.com>,

R...@cris.com wrote:
>
> The Questioner wrote:
> >
> > The Japanese created the "Caucasian Ainu" fiction to suggest that the
> > Japanese are deep-down, whites, and therefore, in the perverted context of
> > 19th and 20th Century European and American colonialism, "entitled" to
> > occupy and plunder other peoples' countries in the name of "civilization."
>
> The Ainu are aboriginal Caucasion people native to the northern
> islands of Japan. The Japanese did not invent the idea that
> the Ainu are Caucasion, and to suggest this is ridiculous.
> The Ainu in appearence are obviously not of Asian origin as they
> have absolutly no mongoloid traits at all. Ainu have promenent
> noses, round eyes, brownish wavey to curly hair, and heavy beards.
> The Ainu look nothing like Koreans, Manchurians, Koryak or Eskimos.

This is silly and shows no knowledge of the appearance of the Ainu.
The Ainu have been connnected with Southeast Asian people both in
appearance and through genetics. Some genetic studies show relationship
to Siberian peoples. The Ainu have mostly black straight hair, although
they are rather hairy, this trait is also found among a number of
peoples in Southeast Asia like the Batak and Jakun.

They are usually shorter than the average Japanese and have similar
nose and cranial structure to Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders
and a similar dental complex. The latter is general part of the
sundadont dental pattern common in Southeast Asia and the Pacific.
They have brown complexions and do look anything similar to Europeans.

The "Caucasoid" theory is indeed a manufactured one, but of Western
and not Japanese origin. It was part of the old "people of the sun"
theories that imagined a great "proto-Caucasoid" diffusion of all world
culture. Naturally this was an inspiration to Nazi type elements and
"Aryan" theorists.

Here is a quote on the subject from sci.archaeology and an abstract
on sundadonty from Medline:

'Among anthropological problems in Japan are the re-
lations between the Ainu, living in Hokkaido and farther
north, and modern Japanese, and those between Japanese
of the Jomon and Yayoi period. A discriminant analysis
of a limited number of skulls (Howells 1986) found dif-
ferences between the Ainu and the Japanese. The latter
clustered in two major groups, one of which consisted
mostly of southem and the other of northern Japanese,
whereas most Jomon skulls clustered in a third group
with Ainus. Modern Japanese skulls are markedly simi-
lar to Chinese ones. Similar results are obtained by Hani-
hara (1985). The analysis of a series of East Asian skulls
with nine measurements suggested that in Jomon times
Japan was inhabited by Ainus, and that a heavy infiltra-
tion of migrants from the Asian continent via the Korean
peninsula took place in Yayoi times.

In bootstraps (chap. 2) they
separate from this cluster 24 times of 100, twice as often
as the next loose member, the Ainu, and then they usu-
ally join South Dravidian members of the Caucasoid
group, from whom they have a fairly small but poorly
tnvestigated genetic difference.

The Ainu have always attracted great anthropological
interest and were considered Caucasoid by early (Euro-
pean) anthropologists. Those least acculturated or mixed
are very few (Omoto 1972, 1973) and live on Hokkaido,
the most northern Japanese island, with a few on South-
ern Sakhalin (USSR, 1500). They were in Japan before
the arrival of modern Japanese, and there may have been
reciprocal gene flow. The major physical characteristic
that differentiates them from other Northeast Asian peo-
ple, with whom they are tied by genetic and linguistic
similarities, is their hairiness as well as the hair form.
This was probably the major reason for thinking of them
as having a Caucasoid origin, but there are also some
other isolated Mongoloid groups other than the Ainu who
show hairiness (Alexseev 1979). The Caucasoid origin
is still a popular suggestion in classical anthropology,
but other hypotheses have been advanced, for example,
that they are related to Australian aborigines, or even
that they are an independent "race" whose genetic simi-
larity to Japanese is due to extensive admixture. Direct
estimates of "purity" by analysis of pedigrees of the last
three to four generations indicated an overall non-Ainu

component of 40% in a sample studied by Omoto (1972,
1973). It is not clear whether it is necessary to invoke
sexual selection to explain the survival of a few, most
probably genetic, traits characteristic of the Ainu like
hairiness or hair shape. For the rest, the Ainu show no
clear trace of Caucasoid ancestry. Omoto has also shown
that the Ainu are Mongoloid, and not Caucasoid, on the
basis of fingerprints and dental morphology. It is also
possible that the Eta, the outcaste untouchables of Japan,
are related to the Ainu (at least as judged from hairi-
ness). Etas were strictly endogamous by law and are, or
were, by profession butchers, tanners, executioners, and
sweepers; the caste has not disappeared to this day and
deserves study. Ryukyuans and Atayal aborigines from
Taiwan were also thought to be related to the Ainu. The
neighbors from whom the Ainu show the smallest genetic
distance are the Hokkaido Japanese. This is not surpris-
ing because they live on the same island; the next clos-
est neighbors are the Ryukyuans (152 + 33). In the tree,
however, the Ainu are outliers in the East Asian cluster.
In the world tree (chap. 2), the Ainu show short-
est distances from Tungus, Japanese, and Koreans; their
distance from Australian aborigines is greater (though
not significantly) than that of Japanese or Koreans from
Australians; their distance from Caucasoids is perfectly
comparable to that of Japanese or Koreans. On boot-
strap trees, the Ainu leave the Northeast Asian cluster
11 times of 100, second to Tibetans (who leave it 22
times). When the Ainu are not with the cluster of North-
east Asian populations, they are only slightly external to
it, as outliers of a group including other Eastern popu-
lations, but, unlike Tibetans, they never join a Cauca-
soid group. It seems reasonable to discard the myth of a
Caucasoid origin of the Ainu.
Most probably, the Ainu lived all over the present
Japanese archipelago, perhaps as early as Jomon times,
and were largely replaced by invaders of Korean or re-
lated origin in the first millennium B.C. and the following
millennium. In most respects, they are northern Mon-
goloids and fairly closely related to all populations from
Northeast Asia. They probably owe their outlying posi-
tion in the northern Mongoloid cluster (chap. 2) to their
being of fairly ancient insular origin, but the genetic ef-
fects of their ancient isolation may have been reduced
by recent admixture with the Japanese.'

--------

AUTHOR: Turner CG 2d
| ADDRESS: Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe
| 85287-2402.
| TITLE: Major features of Sundadonty and Sinodonty, including
| suggestions about East Asian microevolution, population
| history, and late Pleistocene relationships with Australian
| aboriginals.
| SOURCE: Am J Phys Anthropol (3T0), 1990 Jul; 82 (3): 295-317
ABSTRACT: The eight diagnostic morphological traits of the Sundadont
| and Sinodont divisions of the Mongoloid dental complex are
| identified. Intra- and intergroup variation for these crown
| and root features is plotted. The univariate frequency
| distributions provide useful evidence for several
| suggestions about East Asian prehistory, dental
microevolution, and intergroup relationships. The case for
| local evolution of Sundadonty is strengthened by finding
| Australian teeth to be very similar to this pattern.
| Australian Aboriginal teeth are also generally like those of
| Jomonese and some Ainus, suggesting that members of the late
| Pleistocene Sundaland population could have initially
| colonized Sahulland as well as the continental shelf of East
| Asia northward to Hokkaido.

[DirtySickPig]

Let's not forget that Japanese women are not equal to Japanese men in their society
and are treated accordingly. There's no contest at all when these ladies meet a
Filipino steeped in red hot "caballero" manners and wooing techniques. Of course I
am being very prejudiced when I say this. Hehehehe.

Tansong Isda wrote:

> Robato Yao wrote:
>
> > (snip) The Japanese women marrying Filipinos are doing it

> > because I think they find them very "romantic"---Filipinos are
> > literally Asian latinos.
> > Rgds,
> > Chris
>

> They are definitely a lot more responsive towards the "needs" of women, of w/c
> Japanese men lack. Life isn't all work you know, I know this, because of what I
> gathered through my travels. Japanese men doesn't show any romantic inclinations at

> all. (snip)

Hell, their culture won't even allow them to open doors, offer seats, or let women
precede them. In the meantime, Japanese women get more modern with each passing
day. Lucky for us caballeros. DSP

[ke...@jps.net]

In article <vDgEhdxdDkyC-p...@guili-29.kuentos.guam.net>,

cro...@kuentos.guam.net (Robato Yao) wrote:
>
>
>
> I never said that Jomon came from the Philippines. I said that the
> early Philippine settlers came from an Austronesian race that
> originated in the southern coasts of China and populated Taiwan, and
> moved up from there.

It probably is not correct to say that the "Austronesian race"
came from Asia. Maybe the "Proto-" or "Pre-Austronesians" came
from there. However, it is possible that Austronesian itself
developed after these people had already been separated in the
island world for a very long period.

The two main competing theories are that Austronesian became fully
developed in Taiwan (Peter Bellwood, Robert Blust) or in the
Southern Philippines/Eastern Indonesia (Wilhelm Solheim, Otley Beyer).

Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala

[Rat]

The Questioner wrote:
>
> I did not say the Ainu are of "mongoloid stock", whatever the hell that
> means. They are Siberian people. What do you call a North American Navajo?
> Do you want to say "Mongoloid?"

Yes the native americans are in fact of Mongoloid stock,
Thier ancestors having migrated over a land bridge during
TWO different Ice ages. Innuit, and Eskimos are closely related
to Koryak & other Siberian Mongoloid peoples.
They are NOT related to the Ainu.
The fact that you dont know what being of "Mongoloid stock" means,
shows how little you know of the subject you are discussing.
It refers to people who have decended from peoples originating
in what is now present day Mongolia, all sharing physical traits.
Mongols, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Koryak, Innuit, and Native
Americans
are all of Mongoloid stock. Caucasoid stock revers to people decending
from peoples originating from the caucasus mountian area in eastern
europe.
In addition to those people we all recognize to be Caucasion, Arabs,
East Indians, Tajiks, and Ainu are all Caucasoid peoples.
Please note that being of Caucasoid stock has NOTHING to do with skin
color,
neither does it denote being primitive or inferior.

> Once again and finally, I hold that the "Caucasoid" or "Proto-Caucasoid"
> remarks about the Ainu are pure racist ruses initiated for political
> purposes and have no true scientific justification.

Well, you can hold any notion that you wish, as I am done responding to
your posts. When I first began reading your posts in this thread,
I thought you seriously wanted to explore this subject, but I now
see that you are not interested in facts at all, but only in
speculation that will support your own notion of how the world
was populated. You are as gulity as the Japanese that you condemn
of suppressing the facts in regards to who decended from where.

> And as an "Asianoid" I ought to know. :)

Could it be that you are of Malay origions, with a strong dislike
of the Japanese and would like to think that you are humbling
them with your crusade to show they are from the same stock that
you are?

Paalam

Rat

[Tansong Isda]

DirtySickPig wrote:

> For all its worth, my maternal great-grandmother was supposedly
> Filipino-Korean. She survived the Japanese occupation of Manila in WW2. One of
> the strongest family lore was her disgust, which she carried to her dying day,
> that entire units of the Imperial Japanese Army occupation troops were either
> conscripted or mercenary Koreans. Only her ability to speak Korean saved her
> from many ugly situations. She claimed they were more atrocious than Japanese
> troops.

A Korean friend of mine confirmed this to me, for one thing Koreans aren't respected
by the Japanese, even today as a matter of fact. They can never hold Japanese
citizenship even when the individual has never been anywhere except Japan.
Individual of Korean descent has to carry ID telling everyone that this HUMAN is
Korean and not Japanese. At the job site, this Korean has white ID pinned on the
clothing. If they are meaner than the Japanese during the occupation it is because
of the treatments they receive.

[Robato Yao]

I know Filipino people who are eyewitness of the war (like the manager
who worked with us for a long time), and yes, they and he tell
me the Imperial Army use a lot of Korean conscripts in the war, and they
were quite atrocious. I can confirm this observation.

Rgds,

Chris

(counting down from top 50 oxymorons...)
10. Tight slacks
9. Definite maybe
8. Pretty ugly
7. Twelve-ounce pound cake
6. Diet ice cream
5. Rap music
4. Working vacation
3. Exact estimate
2. Religious tolerance
And the NUMBER ONE top oxy-MORON
1. Microsoft Works
---From the Top 50 Oxymorons (thanks to Richard Kennedy)

[Rat]

ke...@jps.net wrote:
>
> The "Caucasoid" theory is indeed a manufactured one, but of Western
> and not Japanese origin. It was part of the old "people of the sun"
> theories that imagined a great "proto-Caucasoid" diffusion of all world
> culture. Naturally this was an inspiration to Nazi type elements and
> "Aryan" theorists.
>
> Here is a quote on the subject from sci.archaeology and an abstract
> on sundadonty from Medline:
>

Paul,

I found your post to be quite educational, my knowlege of the Ainu
is from memory and the source material it came from is not as current
as the material that you included. It is obvious that you actually know
what you are talking about in regards to this subject, and I want
to thank you for taking the time to post some documentation.

Kapayapaan

Rat

[The Questioner]

Western "science" often used to describe the Polynesians as the "whites" of
the Pacific. The "scientific" basis was that Polynesians usually had round
eyes and body frames larger than what Asians were believed to typically
possess. Rather than saying that Malays also had round eyes often and that
diet could account for size, just as the average English Puritan settler to
New England in the 1600's was only a bit over 5 feet tall but somehow got
larger in later generations in America. Reason was not important, but
colonialism was. Japan, Germany, England, France and the United States
hungrily eyed Hawaii. One way of staking a "legitimacy" for a European
takeover of Polynesian lands was to simply say, "they're white (or
white-like), we're white, so we should own them."

If a Western "scientist" , "anthropologist", "skull measurer", whatever, can
only understand humanity in the simple terms of arbitrary racial
classifications, that should be considered THEIR sins, and in the 21st
Century, the CIVILIZED WORLD (if I may use a loaded term) ought forever toss
out their textbook definitions based on 19th century "discoveries."

Sometimes "pop anthropology" "pop history" and "pop science" is permitted to
cross over into the general public's psyche as "fact." The reason for this
is that so much of "actual" anthropology , "well-researched" history, and
"real" science is bogus. Why? Because theories are not laid out by God, but
by people. And people could be racist sons of bitches, or, at the least, be
very ignorant of the subject they are pretending to be experts on. Even if
they follow the scientific method and find that they are on shaky ground,
are making false generalizations or are straightout lying, they will still
figure a way to "prove" their original conclusion, even if it had no
substance at all.

Science, anthropology, history are OPINIONS. Some theories are stronger than
others, but they originate from flawed human personalities, societies,
institutions.

(Do you hear me, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times? Come on, you're like
the fat kid in the back of class who never read the assignment, but when the
teacher calls on him he fakes an answer.)

Examples of "Pop Anthropology" at the disposal of white racism, working from
a white racist perspective, and financially rewarding to their originators,
since there is a great white racist market still existing (it could be
changed by education, but it is an old legacy that if not challenged head
on, is usually the "default setting" for all "scientific" "historic" and
"anthropological" discussions in the West.):

1. The whole Kon-Tiki fiasco of Thor Heyerdahl, that Hawaiians created the
Inca Civilization, so loved in American and European circles, was based on
the ideas that the native American indians were, frankly, too stupid, too
primitive to give rise to Peruvian Incan civilization. It had to have been,
went the reasoning, that these poor sons of bitches needed some "white"
Polynesians to teach the Indians how to make intricate stone fortresses,
pyramids, irrigation systems, etc. The fact that no such structures existed
in Polynesia was beside the point.

2. Another amazingly well received, although thankfully scientifically
unaccepted racist fraud was in the "Chariots of the Gods" books by Erik von
Däniken, who had earlier been convicted of forgery in Switzerland. (You
know that when a Swiss is convicted of forgery he must have been REALLY
BAD.)
His elaborate theory in the 1970's was that the Plains of Nazca in Peru were
landing strips for extraterrestrial craft (as if they needed huge etched
carved bird figures to find their way through space!). He also suggested
that the Mayan civilization of the Yucatan in Mexico was "obviously" of
alien origin.

His books sold in the millions. Why? Because Whites had been educated to
believe that Europe was the origin of all things civilized and that the rest
of the world was barbaric. So when a guy eats fried chicken in Texas he has
no idea that the chicken was an animal first domesticated in Southeast Asia
thousands of years ago. When a woman in New Jersey puts ketchup on her
hamburger she doesn't know that ketchup was a Cantonese sauce based on
tomatoes, which originated by the cultivation of Native Americans in the
Valley of Mexico.

The Japanese have a criminally evil education policy that keeps generation
after generation of Japanese ignorant and racist.

So do the Europeans, Americans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, and
most of the rest of the world too.

One wrong doesn't make a right, but we don't have to live with either wrong.

Rat wrote in message <35982F...@cris.com>...

>ke...@jps.net wrote:
>>
>> The "Caucasoid" theory is indeed a manufactured one, but of Western
>> and not Japanese origin. It was part of the old "people of the sun"
>> theories that imagined a great "proto-Caucasoid" diffusion of all world
>> culture. Naturally this was an inspiration to Nazi type elements and
>> "Aryan" theorists.
>>
>> Here is a quote on the subject from sci.archaeology and an abstract
>> on sundadonty from Medline:
>>
>

[The Questioner]

Chris: The overwhelming bulk of "Chinese" culture coming into Japan came in
through Korea by Koreans. This is true for the learning of the Chinese
classics, as well as Korean dialects (and Japanese dialects) using Chinese
characters, as well as Buddhism (which is Indian-Tibetan-Nepali culture),
etc. The state of marine technology was not great, so direct China-Japan
contact did not appear until roughly the 600's A.D.. Still, for a thousand
years afterward, Korea and Koreans continued to be the main source of
"Chinese-Korean" culture in Japan, either directly leaving Korean ports or
through Tsushima.

In the 5th Century A.D., whole villages of Paekche Koreans left Korea for
resettlement to join fellow Koreans who had long been established in Japan.
The "-be" system of Japan originates from this Paekche tradition. This is
how specialized guilds of Korean ceramicists, weavers, swordmakers,
jewellers, and other craftspeople came to settle in Japan.

The direct Chinese role in Japanese culture is limited to the discussion of
certain individuals, but always vastly outnumbered by Koreans of similar
skills and knowledge.

Remember: the Japanese Right wants us to think "Chinese" instead of Korean
and Malay.
Robato Yao wrote in message <6n9gti$uf$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>In <35a60f61...@news.newsguy.com>, new...@abac.com (Don Kirkman)
writes:
>>It seems to me I heard somewhere that Robato Yao wrote in article
>><vDgEhdxdDkyC-p...@guili-29.kuentos.guam.net>:

>
>Japanese did not import Chinese culture on their own. Logic and
>common sense would tell you that it would also be better to just import
>the sources of that culture directly so they can teach the populace.
>That means Chinese teachers, scholars, monks, craftsman, artists,
>doctors or quacks, even skilled workers, the ancient version of
>immigrant H2 workers. Once you get past Japanized names, history is
>full of such characters. The Chinese would also come to their own
>accord, looking for trade, looking for a better life, or just running
>away from the wars and often repressive and totalitarian practices
>Chinese dynasties often do. These people quickly mingled and were
>assimilated into the population.

[Don Kirkman]

It seems to me I heard somewhere that cro...@kuentos.guam.net wrote in
article <6n5vkn$18s$1...@brokaw.wa.com>:

>In <6n4g9o$o...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, "The Questioner" <conta...@thisnewsgroupplease.com> writes:

[...]

>>My personal fields of study, knowledge and interest are history, linguistics
>>and politics, but my knowledge of Malay history and culture is limited. I
>>need your help in proving this theory. In Japan, one speaks of another
>>Japanese looking "northern" or "southern". It seems OBVIOUS that the
>>"southern" element (what pseudo-science at the disposal of the Japanese
>>Right calls "Austronesian" or "Paleo-Chinese") is really Malay. The Japanese

>I think your essay needs clarification. Austronesian is a blanket term
>that includes Malays, Indonesians, Hawaiians, Filipinos, Micronesians,
>Melanesians, Fijians, Thai, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Polynesians,
>Southern Chinese---an amazing 3000 languages all in all. These peoples
>are said to have originate from a common ancestral race. Hence
>Austronesian, Austroasiatic, Austro-Tai are terms to describe this proto
>race.

[...]

>But not their genes---Southern Chinese like the Cantonese have genetic
>traits much closer to southern Asians than they are to Northern Chinese,
>which cluster much closer with Japanese, Koreans and Mongolians. It is
>as if a dividing line is drawn on the Yangtze river. And not completely
>lost in their language either, such as in the Cantonese and Fujienese
>dialects.

>The Fujienese dialect still has words that are Austronesian-Yuet in
>origin. For example:

>Tapo for male person, Tsabo or zabou for female. It sound like Tao in
>Tagalog for person.

>Be is for rice. The Yuet probably invented rice, and gave the word to
>the Chinese language. In Tagalog, uncooked rice is bigas.

>But the sailing boat is the Austronesian-Yuet's greatest invention. How

[...]

>What is the name of this boat? Call it the Bun, Ban or Van. The name
>of this boat probably gave the same name to a whole bunch of languages
>in the region. In Tagalog it's called the Bangka. Strangely enough,
>there is a town in Taiwan by that name, and its Chinese character is
>that of a boat. The Moros in the southern Philippines call it the
>Vinta.

>In Hokkien, the boat is called Tsun or Zun. In Mandarin, Chuan. In
>Japanese native kun reading (not the derived Chinese On reading), it's
>fune or funai. Cut the second syllable, and you get fun.

But Japanese doesn't cut that way; the second syllable is -ne or -nai,
and if you cut it you end with fu-

>Here is another. The Hokkien word 'tai'---to kill, does not exist in
>the Mandarin language. But in Tagalog and Taiwan aboringine language,
>it surfaces as patay and matay. In Japanese native (non
>Chinese)reading, it seemed to evolve to 'tai' as "vs." or tatakai, to
>"fight".

In Japanese that 'tai' is a Chinese-style reading; native Japanese is
'soroi' or 'kotae.'

>In Japanese, hi is native reading for fire and light; ka is the Chinese
>based reading. But the Hokkienese call fire and light, he. The
>Tagalogs call it apoy, but remarkably, the Hawaiians call it a-hi.

You aren't accounting for the fact that many h- or f- words in Japanese
started as p- in proto- or very early Japanese.

>They paint their faces. They carry babies on their backs. They have
>the ability for mountain or hillside rice paddy cultivation. Mountain
>rice paddy cultivation is present in southern China, Taiwan, even
>Southern Japan, and with the most magnificent examples in the mountain
>provinces of the northern Philippines. For music, they beat their
>drums. I find a remarkable similarity in the way Chinese, Japanese,
>Polynesians beat drums in their traditional cultures (like in the
>Chinese Lion Dance).

Obviously connected, then, to Native Americans [painted faces, babies on
backs, drums]--and to ancient Picts and Scots [painted faces, drums, and
those blasted Egyptian bag pipes].

[...]

>Is there any coincidences in the Japanese and Tagalog languages?
>Japanese language is full of Chinese words, so we have to exclude these
>words. Tagalog is full of Malaysian, Spanish, Chinese, even Indian
>words (like Mahal), so we have to excluse these too. So what are we
>left? A core vocabulary of short syllable vowel structured words with a
>staccato sound---mata (eye), bato (rock), ina (mother), etc,.

>Here are some coincidences or connections, depending on your viewpoint.

>In Tagalog, to strike is "tira". In Japanese, it's "ataru".

>In Japanese, something high or tall is "takai". In Tagalog, it's
>"tangkad".

Two questions need answers. First, did ancient Japanese have syllables
beginning with vowels, or have initial consonants become elided from
words like ataru? Second, very likely ancient Japanese did NOT allow
double vowels; there is absolute evidence that 'takai' originally (even
until historical times, since it's in preserved writing) was 'takaki.'

>In Japanese, to ask is "tanomu". In Tagalog, it's tanong.

There is reason to believe that in Japanese the -m- originally was one
or more vowels and/or consonants that coalesced into the bilabial -m-.

>In Japanese, sincerely, really is "honto". In Tagalog it's "toto-o",
>spoken with a very similar sound and inflection. Listen to how a
>Japanese say and use honto and note the same how Filipinos use toto-o.

Chinese-style.

>In Japanese, they scream "itai" in pain. Note how Filipinos scream
>"aray" in pain. Same style, even the same inflection.

Old word was 'itashi\ita-ku.'

>Japanese use the word "no" to denote possession. Filipinos use "ni" and
>"ng" to denote possession, although the order is reversed. "Suzuki no
>kuruma" vs. "kotse ni Suzuki".

>In Japanese, "ano" is like refering this in a questioning way. It
>sounds much like the way Filipinos use "ano" too. "Ano ba ito?"

But Japanese also use 'ano' for 'that one.'

>Filipinos often use "na", "ka", "ba" to end their sentences,
>particularly in question, they use "ka" and "ba". I noted that
>Chamorros in Guam like to end with "ne".

>As for the Malaysians, they are a later development, an evolution of the
>Yuet that retreated to the jungles in the south and those that came from
>the sea. But these are not connected to the Wa people of Japan, which
>is based on the sea faring group of the Austronesian race. The Malays
>are probably descended from those that fled to Vietnam.

>I hope that explains something. What I presented both contradicts and
>supports different parts of your theories.

I think there are two risks you run with this type of argument, Chris.
First, you (generic!) need access to scholarly evidence in any language
you want to consider; contemporary vocabulary or forms don't cut it, but
the Questioner doesn't seem to understand that from what I've read (and
I *do* skip a lot, because I have a life outside the Internet).

Much more crucial, though, is that languages spread like wildfire
compared to the glacial speed of genetic dispersion and anatomic
evolution. A relative handful of languages and other cultural features
are becoming ever more universal, and already hundreds or thousands of
languages have gone extinct. IOW, contemporary language is pretty poor
evidence for the provenance of an ethnic group--especially in the
absence of archeological or genetic evidence.
--
Don
new...@abac.com

[Don Kirkman]

It seems to me I heard somewhere that The Questioner wrote in article
<6n7i2g$8...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>:

>Once again, you rely on fake studies prepared by ignorant Westerners rather
>than ask yourself why so many modern Tagalog words sound and look very
>similar to modern Japanese words. That's just Tagalog. Imagine if all the

>effort your side has put into blood sampling and DNA testing were put into
>conducting a study of northern Filipino and aboriginal Taiwanese dialects,
>and then comparing those words with modern Okinawan and Japanese local
>dialects. Wouldn't you agree that this is at least a highly interesting find
>that we have encountered in this newsgroup?

First, comparing Japanese to *any* single language is specious research;
compare it to a wide-ranging sample of Asian-Altaic, Southeast Asian,
Malay, and Polynesian and see if your hypothesis holds up.

And, as I've said a couple of times already, *LANGUAGES DO NOT
NECESSARILY RIDE ON THE BACK OF GENETIC DISPERSION." Or are all the
South Americans of Portuguese and Spanish stock? All the West Indians
of English or French stock? All African Americans of English stock?

>Kazuo, we could end the madness right now. Or do you think we should all go
>out and take a blood test?
>Frankly, I think that if the linguistic proof isn't enough, coupled with the
>fact that the Japanese look Korean and Malay and happen to be neighbors of
>Korea and Malay-lands, then you might be rabid.

Even if I were to grant the truth of your assertions about language
(which I don't, since you've offered no evidence beyond your own
[apparently casual] observations) they are unpersuasive because the
genetic development timespan is millenia more than that of language
development. How different genetically are modern Englishmen from
Chaucer, or from the Angles or Friesians?
--
Don
new...@abac.com

[Don Kirkman]

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Robato Yao wrote in article
<vDgEhdxdDkyC-p...@guili-29.kuentos.guam.net>:

>On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 23:06:14, "The Questioner"
><conta...@thisnewsgroupplease.com> wrote:

>> Wow! This is what I was hoping to see. What a wealth of exciting information
>> you have discussed! Your Tagalog-Japanese linguistic pairing clearly prove
>> what I believed, that the settlement of ancient Japan was not by some
>> mysterious disappeared races, but rather is closely and completely related
>> to Japan's neighbors.

[...]

>The Chinese element even to the Kanji pronounciations in Japanese
>culture has been consistently demonstrate a more southern bent. In my
>Hokkien dialect, I use words like "kantan" to refer to simple, "sekai"
>to refer to world society, "sikan" for time. They're more similar to
>the equivalent Japanese, kantan, sekai and jikan than to their
>Mandarin equivalents.

The early Japanese brought *the Chinese language*, including the kanji,
back to Japan over several centuries. The pronunciation varied
depending on the part of China, thet historical era, and the discipline
the characters were used for. Since some of the Japanese reading of
Japanese characters was learned from Southern Chinese, it seems atarimae
that Japanese should pronounce some of their *Chinese* in a way that's
familiar to you--since all the examples you give are Chinese-style
readings of kanji.
--
Don
new...@abac.com

[Robato Yao]

The Japanese seem to add an additional vowel sound. I still thing the
root word was something like fun, which can have originated from a
bun, and then the -e or -ai added.

Naturally in time, the sounds may be melded so it sounds like fu-ne
rather than fun-e.

>
>>Here is another. The Hokkien word 'tai'---to kill, does not exist in
>>the Mandarin language. But in Tagalog and Taiwan aboringine language,
>>it surfaces as patay and matay. In Japanese native (non
>>Chinese)reading, it seemed to evolve to 'tai' as "vs." or tatakai, to
>>"fight".
>
>In Japanese that 'tai' is a Chinese-style reading; native Japanese is
>'soroi' or 'kotae.'

Tatakai?

I don't recall "tai" as vs. in Chinese, although someone can
enlighten me.

>
>>In Japanese, hi is native reading for fire and light; ka is the Chinese
>>based reading. But the Hokkienese call fire and light, he. The
>>Tagalogs call it apoy, but remarkably, the Hawaiians call it a-hi.
>
>You aren't accounting for the fact that many h- or f- words in Japanese
>started as p- in proto- or very early Japanese.

That only reinforces it. I said the Filipinos use "apoy", and I bet in
other cultures, fire can be like "api".

>
>>They paint their faces. They carry babies on their backs. They have
>>the ability for mountain or hillside rice paddy cultivation. Mountain
>>rice paddy cultivation is present in southern China, Taiwan, even
>>Southern Japan, and with the most magnificent examples in the mountain
>>provinces of the northern Philippines. For music, they beat their
>>drums. I find a remarkable similarity in the way Chinese, Japanese,
>>Polynesians beat drums in their traditional cultures (like in the
>>Chinese Lion Dance).
>
>Obviously connected, then, to Native Americans [painted faces, babies on
>backs, drums]--and to ancient Picts and Scots [painted faces, drums, and
>those blasted Egyptian bag pipes].

But they are much closer.

>
>[...]
>
>>Is there any coincidences in the Japanese and Tagalog languages?
>>Japanese language is full of Chinese words, so we have to exclude these
>>words. Tagalog is full of Malaysian, Spanish, Chinese, even Indian
>>words (like Mahal), so we have to excluse these too. So what are we
>>left? A core vocabulary of short syllable vowel structured words with a
>>staccato sound---mata (eye), bato (rock), ina (mother), etc,.
>
>>Here are some coincidences or connections, depending on your viewpoint.
>
>>In Tagalog, to strike is "tira". In Japanese, it's "ataru".
>
>>In Japanese, something high or tall is "takai". In Tagalog, it's
>>"tangkad".
>
>Two questions need answers. First, did ancient Japanese have syllables
>beginning with vowels, or have initial consonants become elided from
>words like ataru? Second, very likely ancient Japanese did NOT allow
>double vowels; there is absolute evidence that 'takai' originally (even
>until historical times, since it's in preserved writing) was 'takaki.'

In the ancient Filipinos, it's possible that -ng and -d sound endings in
the vowels were absent, but I need to check up on that.

The Tagalog "high" is ta-as.

>
>>In Japanese, to ask is "tanomu". In Tagalog, it's tanong.
>
>There is reason to believe that in Japanese the -m- originally was one
>or more vowels and/or consonants that coalesced into the bilabial -m-.
>
>>In Japanese, sincerely, really is "honto". In Tagalog it's "toto-o",
>>spoken with a very similar sound and inflection. Listen to how a
>>Japanese say and use honto and note the same how Filipinos use toto-o.
>
>Chinese-style.

The Chinese never had an equivalent to honto or totoo, and as a Chinese
I should know.

>
>>In Japanese, they scream "itai" in pain. Note how Filipinos scream
>>"aray" in pain. Same style, even the same inflection.
>
>Old word was 'itashi\ita-ku.'
>
>>Japanese use the word "no" to denote possession. Filipinos use "ni" and
>>"ng" to denote possession, although the order is reversed. "Suzuki no
>>kuruma" vs. "kotse ni Suzuki".
>
>>In Japanese, "ano" is like refering this in a questioning way. It
>>sounds much like the way Filipinos use "ano" too. "Ano ba ito?"
>
>But Japanese also use 'ano' for 'that one.'

I know.

There is another word that strikes me as interesting. This one is the
Filipino "Ako" or Indonesian "Aku" for I. The Japanese sure use Ware
and Watashi, but don't they have "Boku" as well? I wonder if there is
any connection between Boku and Aku.

>
>>Filipinos often use "na", "ka", "ba" to end their sentences,
>>particularly in question, they use "ka" and "ba". I noted that
>>Chamorros in Guam like to end with "ne".
>
>>As for the Malaysians, they are a later development, an evolution of the
>>Yuet that retreated to the jungles in the south and those that came from
>>the sea. But these are not connected to the Wa people of Japan, which
>>is based on the sea faring group of the Austronesian race. The Malays
>>are probably descended from those that fled to Vietnam.
>
>>I hope that explains something. What I presented both contradicts and
>>supports different parts of your theories.
>
>I think there are two risks you run with this type of argument, Chris.
>First, you (generic!) need access to scholarly evidence in any language
>you want to consider; contemporary vocabulary or forms don't cut it, but
>the Questioner doesn't seem to understand that from what I've read (and
>I *do* skip a lot, because I have a life outside the Internet).

I am not suggesting that this is absolute evidence, but rather
suggestive ones.

>
>Much more crucial, though, is that languages spread like wildfire
>compared to the glacial speed of genetic dispersion and anatomic
>evolution. A relative handful of languages and other cultural features
>are becoming ever more universal, and already hundreds or thousands of
>languages have gone extinct. IOW, contemporary language is pretty poor
>evidence for the provenance of an ethnic group--especially in the
>absence of archeological or genetic evidence.

I understand that problem. The Tagalog language is one hell of a hybrid
language---mixed from all its neighbors and colonial rulers. There is
even a few truly Japanese words in the language ranging from those
introduced by Japanese-Christians fleeing Japan and setting up Japantown
(later destroyed by the Spanish rulers) to modern additions
like ajinomoto. I was deliberately looking for words that were not
Spanish, or felt like they came from India (kama, mahal) and other
sources. By the way, there is a few hundred other Philippine languages
to consider too, which is still with us on the present day.

I don't believe ancient Filipinos came to Japan. I do believe that
certain Jomon/Wa peoples and I do mean peoples in multiplicity, are
Austronesian that have common ancestors to Filipinos, Malays and
Taiwanese aboringines. I am just expressing a theory here and some
loose circumstantial evidence. I am not asking that this should be
taken as a dogma, rather, food for thought or examination. I for one
don't want what I just said to be taken as an absolute fact, rather just
material for thought, so you can say ah, so-yo. That should all be
subjected to discussion, analysis, dissection and addition.

As for DNA studies, I have a problem with that. I have seen or heard a
multitude of DNA studies, and I am beginning to be a bit skeptical. It
looks to me that genetic studies are still in infancy and the samples
are not large enough or seem to cover enough regions. The image of
dabbling your toe in the surface water rather than swimming in the lake
keeps striking in my head. Like statistics and computer benchmarks,
genetic studies can be vastly misinterpreted by those that are not
trained geneticists. For Chrissakes, you can make a genetic study and
say, Japanese descended from earthworms because of a certain
mitchondria. I should have every reason to suspect DNA studies as with
language studies. They are all just food for thought, not taken as
conclusive evidence, until someone is willing to sponsor the Mother of
all Genetic studies.

[Robato Yao]

In <35a60f61...@news.newsguy.com>, new...@abac.com (Don Kirkman) writes:
>It seems to me I heard somewhere that Robato Yao wrote in article
><vDgEhdxdDkyC-p...@guili-29.kuentos.guam.net>:
>

>>On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 23:06:14, "The Questioner"
>><conta...@thisnewsgroupplease.com> wrote:
>
>>> Wow! This is what I was hoping to see. What a wealth of exciting information
>>> you have discussed! Your Tagalog-Japanese linguistic pairing clearly prove
>>> what I believed, that the settlement of ancient Japan was not by some
>>> mysterious disappeared races, but rather is closely and completely related
>>> to Japan's neighbors.
>

>[...]

>
>>The Chinese element even to the Kanji pronounciations in Japanese
>>culture has been consistently demonstrate a more southern bent. In my
>>Hokkien dialect, I use words like "kantan" to refer to simple, "sekai"
>>to refer to world society, "sikan" for time. They're more similar to
>>the equivalent Japanese, kantan, sekai and jikan than to their
>>Mandarin equivalents.
>

>The early Japanese brought *the Chinese language*, including the kanji,
>back to Japan over several centuries. The pronunciation varied
>depending on the part of China, thet historical era, and the discipline
>the characters were used for. Since some of the Japanese reading of
>Japanese characters was learned from Southern Chinese, it seems atarimae
>that Japanese should pronounce some of their *Chinese* in a way that's
>familiar to you--since all the examples you give are Chinese-style
>readings of kanji.

It seems to me that the meat or bulk of kanji readings started about the
Six Dynasties (same time where the real Mulan lived, no relation) all
the way to the Tang. Anything later from the Song to the Ming were
already icing to the cake, and Song dialects is considered Middle
Chinese. The Hokkien dialects, like the Cantonese and Hakka dialects,
reflect more of the Middle Chinese which kanji sounds are derived and
may even be older than Cantonese.

Because of ocean position, ships leaving Japan would likely reach the
central to southern Chinese coasts, as opposed to the coasts in the
Yellow sea. The best position is the general area of Shanghai/Yangtze
river mouth. A ship going south and missed that area is likely to head
even more south and wallah, you are in the Fujien coast. And then of
course, those taking the route of the Ryukus will likely end in the
Fujien coast as well.

Japanese did not import Chinese culture on their own. Logic and
common sense would tell you that it would also be better to just import
the sources of that culture directly so they can teach the populace.
That means Chinese teachers, scholars, monks, craftsman, artists,
doctors or quacks, even skilled workers, the ancient version of
immigrant H2 workers. Once you get past Japanized names, history is
full of such characters. The Chinese would also come to their own
accord, looking for trade, looking for a better life, or just running
away from the wars and often repressive and totalitarian practices
Chinese dynasties often do. These people quickly mingled and were
assimilated into the population.

Rgds,

[Yamane Kazuo]

In an article, conta...@thisnewsgroupplease.com ("The Questioner")
writes:

>Once again, you rely on fake studies prepared by ignorant Westerners rather

>than ask yourself why so many modern Tagalog words sound and look very
>similar to modern Japanese words. That's just Tagalog. Imagine if all the
>effort your side has put into blood sampling and DNA testing were put into
>conducting a study of northern Filipino and aboriginal Taiwanese dialects,
>and then comparing those words with modern Okinawan and Japanese local
>dialects. Wouldn't you agree that this is at least a highly interesting find
>that we have encountered in this newsgroup?

>And that is just off the shelf, MODERN language comparison. Just based on
>this newsgroup, we have uncovered quite a few examples proving Japanese as
>"Malay words and sounds with Korean grammar" . Tell me, why is it not
>sufficient to show that if these linguistic phenomena exist in Okinawa and
>Japan on such a massive scale, then the inhabitants are ALSO likely Malays
>and Koreans?

Can someone tell this fellow that genes and language don't necessarily
follow each other around.
For the newcomers that might not be too familiar with Questioner,
here's
others' reactions.

First of all, some of the irrelevant parts are edited out to keep the
list short.

1. Here, Questioner being scolded for making an unsubstantiated
claim.
*****************************************************
Subject: Re: "Secret" Japanese Origins are Obvious
From: Shimpei Yamashita
<shimpei+ey...@BOFH.patnet.caltech.edu>
Date: 1998/06/23
Message-ID: <6mp8b6$d...@eyrie.org>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan.moderated,soc.culture.japan
[Subscribe to soc.culture.japan.moderated]

The Questioner <conta...@thisnewsgroupplease.com> writes:

>It is good that you brought this up, Todokan. Japanese fascist arguments try
>endlessly to confuse the simple and true origins of the Japanese--Malay,
>Ainu and Korean--with a million terms, usually of theoretical peoples who
>never called themselves by such names. This is how we get Yayoi (Kaya
>Koreans) and Jomon (Malays from Taiwan and the Philippines).

Oh, please. The terms Yayoi and Jomon originated from the two very
distinct styles of earthenware made by the respective cultures, long
before the origins of their makers were well-known to the historians.
You appear to be well-versed in fact, but your harping of conspiracy
theories at every opportunity is getting a little tiresome.

******************************************************

2. No sooner Questioner makes two more bloopers by claiming that
Japanese didn't have direct contact with Chinese until around
600 AD and that Ko from Japanese word Kofun stands
for Korean. This too was corrected below.

*******************************************************
Subject: Re: "Secret" Japanese Origins are Obvious
From: Akira Ijuin <aij...@best.com>
Date: 1998/06/18
Message-ID: <6maefe$f2d$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan.moderated,soc.culture.japan
[Subscribe to soc.culture.japan.moderated]

In soc.culture.japan.moderated The Questioner wrote:

> Let's stop the silliness, Kazuo. I thought you were serious. The
> Chinese did not have any direct contact with Japan until around 660
> AD.

I'd like to know the basis for this claim. I have a copy of a Chinese
record written in the 3rd century that makes mention of Japan. It
mentions a Japanese queen paying respect to the Chinese emperor in
June of 238.

Another Chinese record, written in 7th century, claims Japanese sent
gifts to the first emperor of the 2nd Han dynasty (reign: 25AD -
57AD).

> By the way, doesn't anyone think it odd that the Korean-like tumuli,
> roundish raised burial mounds, in Japan are called "Kofun"? The
> prefix "ko-" in Japanese is traditionally understood to refer to
> Korean.

Huh?? "kofun" is written as:

; ; ,,,,;,,,,
,,,,,,,;,,,,,,,, ; , ' ,
; ,,;,,'';''''';''
; ; ,,,,,,,,,
;''''''''; ; ;,,,,,,,;
; ; ;,, ;,,,,,,,;
; ; ''' ;,,,,,,,;
'''''''''' ,,' ',,

This literally means "old tomb mound". "ko" here means "old", and
nothing else. I'd check your sources.

While you probably have some valid points to make, your arguments are
filled with factual errors. Before accusing people of falling victim
to brainwashing, I'd try harder to backup your claims with facts.
*************************************************************

3. While pretending to be fighting for racism, Questioner puts down
various
None Japanese by calling them GAIJIN.
Japanese term Gaijin are regarded by some as derogatory and
react negatively when such term are used.

***********************************************************
Subject: Re: "Secret" Japanese Origins are Obvious
From: yam...@ix.netcom.com (Yamane Kazuo)
Date: 1998/06/25
Message-ID: <3591d91f...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.korean,soc.culture.japan
[Subscribe to soc.culture.korean]

In an article The Questioner writes:

> Attention GAIJIN:

How carefree you are.
"Attention GAIJIN"?
Oh well.

**********************************************************

4. Here, questioner shows his ignorance about Japanese.
He stated, if you cut the second syllable from Fune[boat in
English] you get Fun.
Which of course is wrong as below pointed out.

***********************************************************
From: new...@abac.com (Don Kirkman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.filipino, soc.culture.indonesia,
soc.culture.japan,
soc.culture.malaysia, soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: Austronesian or Malay Re: Malay Japanese Origins
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 00:12:26 GMT
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
Reply-To:new...@abac.com

It seems to me I heard somewhere that cro...@kuentos.guam.net wrote
in
article <6n5vkn$18s$1...@brokaw.wa.com>:

>In <6n4g9o$o...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, "The Questioner"
<conta...@thisnewsgroupplease.com> writes:

[...]

>What is the name of this boat? Call it the Bun, Ban or Van. The name

>of this boat probably gave the same name to a whole bunch of languages
>in the region. In Tagalog it's called the Bangka. Strangely enough,
>there is a town in Taiwan by that name, and its Chinese character is
>that of a boat. The Moros in the southern Philippines call it the
>Vinta.
>
>In Hokkien, the boat is called Tsun or Zun. In Mandarin, Chuan. In
>Japanese native kun reading (not the derived Chinese On reading), it's
>fune or funai. Cut the second syllable, and you get fun.

But Japanese doesn't cut that way; the second syllable is -ne
or -nai, and if you cut it you end with fu-

[cut]
*********************************************************

5. Lastly, Questioner's Malay claim being condemned.

*********************************************************
From: austin seo <anon...@unixg.ubc.ca>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.korean,soc.culture.japan
Subject: Re: Ancient Korean and Japanese history;despicable babblers
on
thistopic
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 22:43:43 +0400
Organization: Centre for Molecular Medicine & Therapeutics
Reply-To: anon...@unixg.ubc.ca
NNTP-Posting-Host:142.231.21.117

Yamane Kazuo wrote:
> > Am J Phys Anthropol 1997 Apr;102(4):437-446
> > Genetic origins of the Japanese: a partial support for the dual structure
> > hypothesis.
> >
> > Omoto K, Saitou N
>
> This questions Questioner's claim of Jomon equals Malays.

Which we both can agree is dubious.

*******************************************************************

[Htin Aung Moe]

Good one.

[kru...@my-dejanews.com]

In article <3595C85C...@gol.com>,
Atsushi Ishida <atsu...@gol.com> wrote:
>
> Your posts are very interesting and thought-provoking, Mr. Questioner.
> That so many Japanese men are taking Filipino brides is certainly
> evidence of an incipient re-Malayanization of Japan.
>

Hahaha.. Must be some call of mother nature in born from prehistoric
times.

But what about mail-order brides from Phillipines to Europe
or Australia?

[kru...@my-dejanews.com]

>
> Could it be that you are of Malay origions, with a strong dislike
> of the Japanese and would like to think that you are humbling
> them with your crusade to show they are from the same stock that
> you are?
>
> Paalam
>
> Rat
>

I thought you were saying that your arguments are not racist and you
seems rational enough until the above paragraph!

As a Malay, I don't see how being of the same
stock as the Malays could be humbling. The Malays could look at it
the other way but who cares?

It should be interesting though to know the actual flow of
humanity and newer ways of looking at things should be
factually supported.

[Jakun]

kru...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<6na75n$2tm$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
<snip>

>But what about mail-order brides from Phillipines to Europe
>or Australia?

What about them? Check the title of the thread....

[cro...@kuentos.guam.net]

In <6n9jl0$1...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>, "The Questioner" <conta...@thisnewsgroupplease.com> writes:
>Chris: The overwhelming bulk of "Chinese" culture coming into Japan came in
>through Korea by Koreans. This is true for the learning of the Chinese
>classics, as well as Korean dialects (and Japanese dialects) using Chinese
>characters, as well as Buddhism (which is Indian-Tibetan-Nepali culture),
>etc. The state of marine technology was not great, so direct China-Japan
>contact did not appear until roughly the 600's A.D.. Still, for a thousand
>years afterward, Korea and Koreans continued to be the main source of
>"Chinese-Korean" culture in Japan, either directly leaving Korean ports or
>through Tsushima.

Nope. Just remember, the Chinese keep records too. Hell
we keep even more records. The trade between Japan and Chinese ports
are very active. Check the Chinese museums---they got mountains of
records and artifacts of such trade.

There are three trade routes. I have mentioned the Fujien-Ryuku and the
Shanghai-Yangtze route. The third route is in the Yellow Sea through
the Yellow River. Chinese and Japanese ships transverse around---not
inland---but around---the Korean peninsula. This information I
did not learn from Japanese rightists, but from a museum in Communist
China.

Common sense tells you that it is faster to move large volumes and
people through ship than through land. The Japanese sent their scholars
directly into China, and the Tang Dynasty welcomed them. The Japanese
kanji pronounciation do not reflect any form of "koreanization", accent
or speech. They are spoken very close to the Middle Chinese style.

You want to talk about Buddism? While Korean monks play a part, sects
like Zen, Jojitsu, Kegon and Shingon had direct, traceable links and
trees to Chinese teachers and monks. For example, Kobo Daishi, who
founded Shingon, studied directly from Hui Kung of China. Rinzai Gigen,
founder of the Rinzai school of Zen, is also known as Lin-Chi I-Hsuan,
also Chinese. Every one of the Zen schools are founded by Chinese and
the links from the Chinese masters to the Japanese masters were
unbroken.

>
>In the 5th Century A.D., whole villages of Paekche Koreans left Korea for
>resettlement to join fellow Koreans who had long been established in Japan.
>The "-be" system of Japan originates from this Paekche tradition. This is
>how specialized guilds of Korean ceramicists, weavers, swordmakers,
>jewellers, and other craftspeople came to settle in Japan.
>
>The direct Chinese role in Japanese culture is limited to the discussion of
>certain individuals, but always vastly outnumbered by Koreans of similar
>skills and knowledge.
>
>Remember: the Japanese Right wants us to think "Chinese" instead of Korean
>and Malay.

The real Japanese Right does not want to acknowledge anybody, including
Chinese.

Rgds,

Chris

>Robato Yao wrote in message <6n9gti$uf$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...

>>In <35a60f61...@news.newsguy.com>, new...@abac.com (Don Kirkman)
>writes:
>>>It seems to me I heard somewhere that Robato Yao wrote in article
>>><vDgEhdxdDkyC-p...@guili-29.kuentos.guam.net>:
>
>>

[Rat]

kru...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>
> I thought you were saying that your arguments are not racist and you
> seems rational enough until the above paragraph!
>
> As a Malay, I don't see how being of the same
> stock as the Malays could be humbling. The Malays could look at it
> the other way but who cares?

I dont see how either, but this was the feeling that I got
from that individuals posts...I didnt mean that to be Malay
an individual would hate Japanese, I was only refering to
one individual, "The Questioner"...and only because of racial
statements that HE made, did I come to such a cunclusion,
also note that I made the statement as a possibility, not as
a known fact. You are right about looking at it another way...
I dont care either.

> It should be interesting though to know the actual flow of
> humanity and newer ways of looking at things should be
> factually supported.

I agree with you, and that was what attracted me to the thread
in the first place. I have nothing more to offer to this thread,
but will continue to follow it, because the subject is truly
a fascinating one.

My appologies if I offended you, it was not my intention.

Kapayapaan

Rat

[DirtySickPig]

So when a Filipino serves spaghetti with slices of hot dogs, you think of Marco
Polo banging his nose in the dark against the Great Wall; a Teutonic maid
forcing ground meat into dried animal intestines to make frankfurters; and
indians cultivating tomatoes, and so on and so forth.

So when Aling Vina unknowingly eats pressed duck (a.k.a. gato) prepared by her
cook, and so on and so forth..... Hehehe. Gatos were first domesticated in
Venice according to the all-knowing Discovery Channel and Sardinians are still
developing a deep diving breed with 10 lives for the sardine fleet. Filipinos
are still developing a meatier breed with One Life To Live for the palayok.
Hehehe. Hey, down there! Can any descendant from aboriginal land bridge
engineers say if the duck billed platypus is edible? The cultural ramifications
of platypus eating is mind boggling!

Just trying to add some levity into this wonderful thread. Sorry for the
interruption. :-x

D. S. Pig
TX Fighting Cock Balut Trader

The Questioner wrote:

> (Snip) So when a guy eats fried chicken in Texas he has no idea that the

[Tansong Isda]

The Questioner wrote:

> When a woman in New Jersey puts ketchup on her
> hamburger she doesn't know that ketchup was a Cantonese sauce based on
> tomatoes, which originated by the cultivation of Native Americans in the
> Valley of Mexico.

Very interesting and accurate description of the academe. But ketchup is
Indonesian(Malay) and originally did not contain tomato. Sugar and tomato made
it palatable to Americans (lots of sugar, Philippines has a version of course
with bananas).
Tomato came later.

[The Questioner]

You are using the present tense when speaking of China-Japan trade. Yes,
there is trade. Yes, Chinese went to Japan, Japanese went to China. Dutch
people came to Japan. Japanese people came to San Francisco. Mozambicans
come to South Africa. People come and go, and we all pick up something here
and there. In a warehouse somewhere in Nebraska there might be stored a
record book of the now-defunct Eastern Airlines Corporation, showing that in
the winter of 1975 a person with a Luxembourg passport stepped off an
Eastern Airlines jet in Daytona, Florida. People of all different nations
have and do influence others. That is not the issue.

These issues have nothing to do with my entire line in this newsgroup, which
is simple: that the main settlers/conquerors of Japan, in addition to the
Ainu, were Malays from Taiwan and the Philippines and Koreans from the
Korean kingdoms of Kaya and Paekche. We can quibble over the details but
this is the basic and irrefutable fact.

The issue is that ANCIENT and even medieval "Chinese" influences into Japan
came through KOREANS. There is no reliable record of direct China-Japan
shipping before the 600's A.D.

The Japanese are not ethnically in any way, shape or form of Chinese origin,
but of Korean origin. The Koreans who settled and conquered Korea (Kaya and
Paekche Koreans) spoke Korean dialects and the mixed with the Malays who
spoke Malay dialects. Chinese words existing in Japan today are in NO WAY
the result of any sort of large-scale direct Chinese cultural or trade or
genetic influence. With the exception of certain scientific and certain
specialized words of relatively recent Japanese coinage, the "Chinese" words
in Japanese came into the hybrid Korean-Malay creole that we now call
Japanese simply because the Koreans used those "chinese" words as part of
their own vocabulary.

Analogous case: Biology and Geometry are Greek words, but fully and totally
naturalized into English. When a native English-speaker says "biology" to
another native speaker of English, the listener does not feel or believe he
is hearing Greek. The Greek words, like the Chinese words that the Koreans
adopted became fully naturalized into the second language. Now as for third
countries. When the British brought English into Nigeria, Nigerians came to
speak of biology and geometry. They were speaking English, not Greek, with
various local Bantu accents and pronunciations. Nobody would say the
Nigerians were speaking Greek, and nobody would say the Greeks colonized
Nigeria, but so sad is the state of Asian Studies in the West, that the
Chinese get the credit for all other Asian peoples' cultural achievements as
the "default setting."

Regardless of various "Japanese" monks or merchants (many of whom if you
research more carefully you will find were actually either Korean-born
immigrants or decendants of Paekche immigrants), no substantial case could
be ever made that the Japanese were carrying on any sort of large mercantile
trade or cultural trade directly with the Chinese until Hideyoshi. It was
considered far too natural and convenient to do most things through Korea
and Koreans.

(As for "records" with Chinese or Japanese names, they must be regarded with
tremendous suspicion, for in Chinese history, as you know, every foreigner
who has ever done any good is called Chinese, whereas the normal foreigner
appellation is "barbarian." Even today, the Chinese are by far the LEAST
ABLE NATION to accept foreign surnames, and virtually require every
foreigner to take a Chinese name at least for business purposes. The
Koreo-Japanese fairly early on maintained dual Korean and Japanese names,
but at some point the Japanese names became fixed. That your history books
give them Japanese names doesn't mean they were Japanese, just as even today
(or up until a year or so ago, the law may have been changed), a
Japanese-born Korean is (was?) required to assume a Japanese name if he is
to assume Japanese citizenship. This old Japanese requirement of the
Korean, even Japan-born Korean who only speaks Japanese and has only lived
in Japan, to deny his Koreanness and to melt into Japanese nationality
invisibly is a terrible personal rights issue, and it has a way of making
every Korean in Japan seem Japanese. The reason why it has been so easy for
Koreans to melt into Japan is that the Japanese are Korean, not Chinese, not
subroots of Chinese culture. It is in many ways as easy for a Korean to feel
at home in Japan as it is for an Irishman to feel at home in Britain. It has
always been so.

So Chris, don't confuse a shipload of "Chinese" vases or, far, far more
likely, Korean vases labelled "Chinese" in a Western or Chinese museum,
carried on board a Korean vessel to Japan in the 5th Century or 15th Century
A.D. for that matter as any kind of proof of heavy Chinese-Japanese trade.

The Japanese do not like to admit this, and certainly neither do those
Westerners who spent a huge amount of their time trying to learn Japanese,
but Japan, from a sino-centric perspective was a cultural backwater until
the late 1900's (and then only because they were the first Asians to
industrialize). Japan was of no interest to China before this century, with
nothing worth trading for and even not worth taking over. Korea was regarded
by China as a respected Tungusic ally in the East that had accepted many
Chinese style state institutions and ways and that was very valuable for
keeping down activity of certain Manchu tribes at China's northern border.
Japan was considered an offshoot of the Koreans, in a way like the French
regarded the Yankees as offshoots of England. In rewriting their history to
glorify their role, the Japanese try to tell us that there were (are) only 2
great Asian civilizations: China and Japan, as virtual equals. Of course,
there are hundreds of Asian civilizations of great interest and achievement,
but the key from Japan's historic point of view was to replace their eternal
elder brother, Korea--NOT China. (By the way, I think on a trip to Korea
Prime Minister Nakasone even referred to Koreans as Japan's "elder
brothers." Of course he was much criticized for this in Japan.)

In foreign languages the Japanese monarch was to be called "Emperor", so
that he should be the equal of China's Emperor. The Japanese nationalist
ego was not only interested in Japan being the equal of China, but its
ruler.

In understanding East Asian history, it is important to understand that the
Japanese's greatest psychosis is their need to extinguish any trace of the
Koreans in their past, present and future. If this is understood, everything
else makes sense. I would add that regarding their Malay roots the Japanese
have a terrible fear of that truth being revealed, but I have no evidence
that they are obsessively going around seeking to undermine the Malay or
destroy the Philippines in the same way that their state propaganda
apparatus feeds anti-Korean sentiment at home and abroad nor in the way that
the Japanese government finds routes to finance the North Korean communist
state.

I am getting very tired of this nonending ignorance of Korean and Malay
history that exists, and the great and urgent rush some people have to point
out the minor players, the rare ship in port, the rare entry of some voyage,
when they patently ignore the overwhelming and obvious fact that THE WHOLE
GODDAMN COUNTRY OF JAPAN WAS PEOPLED AND DEVELOPED BY KOREANS AND MALAYS,
not Chinese, and not 18-year old students of Asian studies whose sole
knowledge is based not on Korean or Malay history, but the existing "Asian
Studies" texts and Asian History lectures of 60-year old degenerate
professors working off of the same unchanged 30-year old notes taken from a
then 60-year old degenerate professor's lectures who was working off his
30-year old notes.

This is how universities and "scholarship" work. Those that can't do, teach.
Such types force themselves on students and they willingly, obediently or
unknowingly in their slumber pass on the last generation's lies or
misunderstandings to the next generation of students. Then that process is
continued.

I am getting bored. Time to download some new software that will crash
Windows, erase necessary drivers, render my replying to newsgroups
impossible.

The Questioner is tired of asking questions. Now just a brief and final
request:

LOOK AT A FREAKING MAP, Go to Korea for a week, listen to the Pusan (Kaya)
accent and tell me if its intonation doesn't sound frighteningly similar to
Japanese. Go to the Royal Asiatic Society's bookstore in Seoul and get as
many books as you can about Korean history, language and civilization. Then
compare dates and the volume of Korean-Japanese contacts with
Chinese-Japanese or Japanese-Chinese contacts and you will begin to
understand something about Japanese history.

Go to the Philippines. Get on a cruise to Taiwan. Take a trip from Taiwan
through the Ryukyus to Kyushu. Look at the peoples faces. Talk to them. Ask
them questions. Note their vocabulary. Pick up as many Tagalog-Japanese
dictionaries as you can. Isn't it amazing that if the early settlers are
alleged to have come to Japan a billion years ago, Tagalog and Japanese have
a huge and very recognizable similarity of vocabulary that suggests a far
more recent contact, perhaps measured in, say, 3000 years of linguistic
distance? And once again, Tagalog is a modern language native to the Manila
area. What would we find in the northern Filipino dialects, the Taiwanese
aboriginal languages and Okinawan/Japanese? Hell, if anyone would have the
decency to bring the Filipinos and Taiwanese aboriginals in on this we
could probably finally conclude this false "mystery" of Japan's ancient
origins.

Then write a book on your findings and publish it OUTSIDE of scholarly
circles. You will win a Pulitzer Prize for journalism. Your book will make a
million dollars when you publish it in Japan, so hungry are the people to
finally know their true history and to join humanity as a normal nation.
Then scholarly circles will acclaim your work.

I challenge anyone to do this, individually, as a group, or as an
institutional project. The facts will NOT lead you astray. But you must
understand Japan's neighbors, Korean and Malay, if you will ever understand
the descendents of the Koreans and Malays who now call themselves Japanese.

We could stop playing around with flying carpet theories that put people in
Japan without their being Korean or Malay. We could stop talking about Yayoi
and Jomon and Chinese Ice Men and horseriding Scythians or
"Proto-Caucasoids"

You will feel you have been lied to by all your teachers, by all your
textbooks, and you will feel very alone.
Then you might want to be The Questioner.

To get the millions of details any active mind craves about the Korean
origins of the Japanese, see
http://iias.snu.ac.kr/wthong/paekche/eng/paekch_e.html. It's free online if
you use the adobe acrobat reader, also free at http://www.adobe.com But it
would be nice if you bought his pathbreaking book.

To read other articles past, present or future by The Questioner,
periodically check the powersearch option of Dejanews at
http://www.dejanews.com/home_ps.shtml or you may bookmark this link:
http://www.dejanews.com/dnquery.xp?QRY=*&ST=PS&DBS=1&defaultOp=AND&maxhits=1
00&format=terse&showsort=subject&groups=&authors=The+Questioner&subjects=&fr
omdate=&todate=

-----Original Message-----
From: cro...@kuentos.guam.net <cro...@kuentos.guam.net>
Newsgroups:
soc.culture.indonesia,soc.culture.japan,soc.culture.malaysia,soc.culture.tai
wan,soc.culture.filipino
Date: Tuesday, June 30, 1998 6:10 AM
Subject: Re: Austronesian or Malay Re: Malay Japanese Origins

[Don Kirkman]

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Robato Yao wrote in article

<6n9gti$uf$1...@brokaw.wa.com>:

>In <35a60f61...@news.newsguy.com>, new...@abac.com (Don Kirkman) writes:
>>It seems to me I heard somewhere that Robato Yao wrote in article
>><vDgEhdxdDkyC-p...@guili-29.kuentos.guam.net>:

[...]

>>>The Chinese element even to the Kanji pronounciations in Japanese
>>>culture has been consistently demonstrate a more southern bent. In my
>>>Hokkien dialect, I use words like "kantan" to refer to simple, "sekai"
>>>to refer to world society, "sikan" for time. They're more similar to
>>>the equivalent Japanese, kantan, sekai and jikan than to their
>>>Mandarin equivalents.

>>The early Japanese brought *the Chinese language*, including the kanji,
>>back to Japan over several centuries. The pronunciation varied
>>depending on the part of China, thet historical era, and the discipline
>>the characters were used for. Since some of the Japanese reading of
>>Japanese characters was learned from Southern Chinese, it seems atarimae
>>that Japanese should pronounce some of their *Chinese* in a way that's
>>familiar to you--since all the examples you give are Chinese-style
>>readings of kanji.

>It seems to me that the meat or bulk of kanji readings started about the
>Six Dynasties (same time where the real Mulan lived, no relation) all
>the way to the Tang. Anything later from the Song to the Ming were
>already icing to the cake, and Song dialects is considered Middle
>Chinese. The Hokkien dialects, like the Cantonese and Hakka dialects,
>reflect more of the Middle Chinese which kanji sounds are derived and
>may even be older than Cantonese.

I'm sorry, but the relevance of this totally escapes me. The Japanese
took the Chinese language from wherever they happened to find it when
they were trading with or studying in or about China, and it didn't
happen all at once.

[Difficulties of Japanese navigators snipped]

>Japanese did not import Chinese culture on their own. Logic and
>common sense would tell you that it would also be better to just import
>the sources of that culture directly so they can teach the populace.
>That means Chinese teachers, scholars, monks, craftsman, artists,
>doctors or quacks, even skilled workers, the ancient version of
>immigrant H2 workers. Once you get past Japanized names, history is
>full of such characters. The Chinese would also come to their own
>accord, looking for trade, looking for a better life, or just running
>away from the wars and often repressive and totalitarian practices
>Chinese dynasties often do. These people quickly mingled and were
>assimilated into the population.

And in the final resolution this differs just how from bringing books
and documents back? Either way the language and characters were
imported into Japan; only the vessels containing them differ. :-)
--
Don
new...@abac.com

[Robato Yao]

And that just happens to be my point, Don. It just happened to be on
the central and south Chinese coasts that they happened to find it
more *conveniently*.

[Robato Yao]

In <6nbv8b$d...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, "The Questioner" <conta...@thisnewsgroupplease.com> writes:
>You are using the present tense when speaking of China-Japan trade. Yes,
>there is trade. Yes, Chinese went to Japan, Japanese went to China. Dutch
>people came to Japan. Japanese people came to San Francisco. Mozambicans
>come to South Africa. People come and go, and we all pick up something here
>and there. In a warehouse somewhere in Nebraska there might be stored a
>record book of the now-defunct Eastern Airlines Corporation, showing that in
>the winter of 1975 a person with a Luxembourg passport stepped off an
>Eastern Airlines jet in Daytona, Florida. People of all different nations
>have and do influence others. That is not the issue.
>
>These issues have nothing to do with my entire line in this newsgroup, which
>is simple: that the main settlers/conquerors of Japan, in addition to the
>Ainu, were Malays from Taiwan and the Philippines and Koreans from the
>Korean kingdoms of Kaya and Paekche. We can quibble over the details but
>this is the basic and irrefutable fact.
>
>The issue is that ANCIENT and even medieval "Chinese" influences into Japan
>came through KOREANS. There is no reliable record of direct China-Japan
>shipping before the 600's A.D.
>

Oh really. The Chinese have their own records and stories, not to
mention archeological evidence in their own museums.

>The Japanese are not ethnically in any way, shape or form of Chinese origin,
>but of Korean origin. The Koreans who settled and conquered Korea (Kaya and
>Paekche Koreans) spoke Korean dialects and the mixed with the Malays who
>spoke Malay dialects. Chinese words existing in Japan today are in NO WAY
>the result of any sort of large-scale direct Chinese cultural or trade or
>genetic influence. With the exception of certain scientific and certain
>specialized words of relatively recent Japanese coinage, the "Chinese" words
>in Japanese came into the hybrid Korean-Malay creole that we now call
>Japanese simply because the Koreans used those "chinese" words as part of
>their own vocabulary.

Ah, ah. The Chinese words in Japanese came directly from the Chinese
themselves. They were not in any form or manner, Koreanized so to
speak. And while it's true that Japanese may have acquired the
grammatical structure from the Koreans, there is a hell of a lot more
Chinese words than Korean words in the Japanese language, indicating a
large scale cultural exchange sustained in time.

>
>Analogous case: Biology and Geometry are Greek words, but fully and totally
>naturalized into English. When a native English-speaker says "biology" to
>another native speaker of English, the listener does not feel or believe he
>is hearing Greek. The Greek words, like the Chinese words that the Koreans
>adopted became fully naturalized into the second language. Now as for third
>countries. When the British brought English into Nigeria, Nigerians came to
>speak of biology and geometry. They were speaking English, not Greek, with
>various local Bantu accents and pronunciations. Nobody would say the
>Nigerians were speaking Greek, and nobody would say the Greeks colonized
>Nigeria, but so sad is the state of Asian Studies in the West, that the
>Chinese get the credit for all other Asian peoples' cultural achievements as
>the "default setting."

Well, consider this. China was clearly and unmistakenly the most
powerful, economic and culturally dominant force in ancient Asia.

>
>Regardless of various "Japanese" monks or merchants (many of whom if you
>research more carefully you will find were actually either Korean-born
>immigrants or decendants of Paekche immigrants), no substantial case could

I research carefully. The Buddist monks that either founded the
Chen/Zen schools and their direct "teaching" lineage to the Japanese
monks had original and unmistakenly Chinese names, as well as their
Japanized names.

>be ever made that the Japanese were carrying on any sort of large mercantile
>trade or cultural trade directly with the Chinese until Hideyoshi. It was
>considered far too natural and convenient to do most things through Korea
>and Koreans.

Not entirely so. The Chinese were far richer, in both resources and
culture. The Tangs was the greatest empire on Earth between the 6th and
10th century, and in the 11th to 13th century, the Songs were
undoubtedly the richest and most culturally endowed. Traders and those
trying to learn will go directly to the *source* not go through things
second hand.

You don't understand geography as well. Chinese goods that have to pass
through Korea will have to go through the north, and until the Manchus
eventually took over China, north of Korea is a treacherous region full
of Tungusic peoples like the Liaos, the Weis, that were enemies of the
Chinese. I question the fact that the Chinese influence in Korea went
through land. Even the coasts bordering the Yellow Sea, including the
province were Beijing now sits on, were ruled by northern tribes people
that were enemies of the Chinese. The reason why Beijing is Chinese
capital, is only because the Mongols made it so, where it was much more
closer to the north and Tungus regions.

When the Japanese had their greatest bulk of cultural exchange to the
Chinese, during the Tangs and the Songs, the capital of China was
Chan-an, or simply, today's Xian of the Terracota army fame. This
is where the heart of the empire is located, not near Korea, especially
the centers of culture and religion. What is the most convenient way to
reach Korea and Japan without dealing with the northern "barbarians"?
The Yangtze river, which reaches deep inland all the way to the sea
coast. You can move by boat faster, safer and more effortlessly than
caravans through the middle and north China. From the mouth of the
Yangtze, the apparent distances of Korea and Japan is about the same.

The very story how Japan got it's Nippon name was because of direct
contact between the Chinese and Japanese emperor in Shotoku's attempt
to gain the attention of the Chinese emperor and express equality in
political status. The political engagement between Japanese and Chinese
even at that time, were already direct and the Japanese were
interested in going out of their way with direct contact with the
Chinese.

>
>(As for "records" with Chinese or Japanese names, they must be regarded with
>tremendous suspicion, for in Chinese history, as you know, every foreigner
>who has ever done any good is called Chinese, whereas the normal foreigner
>appellation is "barbarian." Even today, the Chinese are by far the LEAST

Nonsense. Those Chinese monks were never foreigners.

>ABLE NATION to accept foreign surnames, and virtually require every
>foreigner to take a Chinese name at least for business purposes. The
>Koreo-Japanese fairly early on maintained dual Korean and Japanese names,
>but at some point the Japanese names became fixed. That your history books
>give them Japanese names doesn't mean they were Japanese, just as even today
>(or up until a year or so ago, the law may have been changed), a
>Japanese-born Korean is (was?) required to assume a Japanese name if he is
>to assume Japanese citizenship. This old Japanese requirement of the
>Korean, even Japan-born Korean who only speaks Japanese and has only lived
>in Japan, to deny his Koreanness and to melt into Japanese nationality
>invisibly is a terrible personal rights issue, and it has a way of making
>every Korean in Japan seem Japanese. The reason why it has been so easy for
>Koreans to melt into Japan is that the Japanese are Korean, not Chinese, not

And do you know that the Chinese melt into Japan even better? Once they
learn the language, there is no way you can distinguish them. The
Koreans have a much more direct attitude and a different concept of
credit which rubs the Japanese the wrong way. I can easily see this
even in Guam where we have Korean and Japanese communities living here.
The Chinese don't have the same attitudes and their concepts of
business, protocol. politeness and credit mesh very well with Japanese.
It is very easy for descendants of Chinese living in Japan to quickly
lose their cultural identities and assimilated.

>subroots of Chinese culture. It is in many ways as easy for a Korean to feel
>at home in Japan as it is for an Irishman to feel at home in Britain. It has
>always been so.

The rest of the reasons have nothing to do with the fact that these
Buddist monks were Chinese. My books listed their Chinese names
originally and gave their Japanese names inside brackets.

>
>So Chris, don't confuse a shipload of "Chinese" vases or, far, far more
>likely, Korean vases labelled "Chinese" in a Western or Chinese museum,
>carried on board a Korean vessel to Japan in the 5th Century or 15th Century
>A.D. for that matter as any kind of proof of heavy Chinese-Japanese trade.

Why would Korean vases end up in Chinese musuem? Why would the very
chauvinistic ancient Chinese want to have to do with Korean vases, when
they felt their own was better? The Koreans were also buying Chinese
vases and bartering them for medicinal herbs among other things.

Yeah right. Why don't you read about Chinese civilization as well. The
Chinese were already well aware of the Japanese as long as they come.
They seem to be the only one who have an actual record or description of
ancient Japanese and called them the Wa. It was they who met with
Himiko, and this is just one of the more publicized contacts. It seems
obvious that Japanese had to resort to Chinese texts to discover more
about what goes beyond their unwritten history (before Koreans came.)

>
>Go to the Philippines. Get on a cruise to Taiwan. Take a trip from Taiwan
>through the Ryukyus to Kyushu. Look at the peoples faces. Talk to them. Ask
>them questions. Note their vocabulary. Pick up as many Tagalog-Japanese
>dictionaries as you can. Isn't it amazing that if the early settlers are

Don't joke to me. I lived in the Philippines for years and I have been
in Taiwan for many moons as well. I have friends who are Taiwanese.
My family and I has done business in Okinawa, and I know many Okinawans
personally. I speak Tagalog as one of my languages. Don't lecture me.
I probably know more than you do on these areas. My business deals
with Korea, Japan, China in three fronts---mainland, Taiwan and Hong
Kong. I travel in Asia frequently. In Guam, I have a convenient
melting pot of everyone---Micronesian, Japanese, Koreans, Chinese
(Taiwan, HK, mainland), Filipinos---that you can directly compare every
minute and every hour.

I can sit on a restaurant listening, and I can hear Chinese, Japanese,
Korean. Chamoru, and Filipino languages being spoken *simultaneously*.
Oh did I mention Palaon, Yapese and Trukese languages as well.

>alleged to have come to Japan a billion years ago, Tagalog and Japanese have
>a huge and very recognizable similarity of vocabulary that suggests a far
>more recent contact, perhaps measured in, say, 3000 years of linguistic

Why did you have to exaggerate my evidence as huge and very
recognizable?

The evidence I put up, and it's the only ones so far the readers of
these newsgroups can put up, not even you, are *small* and only
*suggestive.*

I feel that Yayoi and Yamato Japanese were Korean, either Paechke or
Koguryo, and I feel that the ancient hatred between Japanese and Korean
was due to the loss of the Korean portion of one of these two kingdoms
to Silla, probably in a most bloody war, and the initial drive to regain
the peninsula from Silla by Paechke and Koguryans in Japan was lost and
turned into a national Japanese drive to conquer Korea itself (sort of
regaining Korea for the descendants of Paechke or Kogoryu).

The Jomons I feel are Austronesians (your proto Malays) and the Chinese
description of Wa seems to jive well with their description of Hundred
Yuet. I feel that the Yuet and the Jomon or Wa are connected. But this
does not mean that the Yuet or Wa are ancient Filipinos.

None of these connections---Koreans to Yayoi, Yuet to Wa---does not
contradict, nor refute, the substantial, if not large scale
direct cultural exchange between the Japanese and the Chinese that
began occuring in the Sixth Century or so, one that may also have
involved immigration of skilled labor, scholars, monks and artists.

Chris

[Robato Yao]

In <6n8e7h$cct$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ke...@jps.net writes:
>In article <vDgEhdxdDkyC-p...@guili-29.kuentos.guam.net>,
> cro...@kuentos.guam.net (Robato Yao) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I never said that Jomon came from the Philippines. I said that the
>> early Philippine settlers came from an Austronesian race that
>> originated in the southern coasts of China and populated Taiwan, and
>> moved up from there.
>
>It probably is not correct to say that the "Austronesian race"
>came from Asia. Maybe the "Proto-" or "Pre-Austronesians" came
>from there. However, it is possible that Austronesian itself
>developed after these people had already been separated in the
>island world for a very long period.
>
>The two main competing theories are that Austronesian became fully
>developed in Taiwan (Peter Bellwood, Robert Blust) or in the
>Southern Philippines/Eastern Indonesia (Wilhelm Solheim, Otley Beyer).

I think you forgot the theory that they indeed came directly from Asia,
non Sinitic peoples similar to aboringines in China today---people who
have their own distinct cultures and languages. A look into some of
these aboringines suggest, don't they look Malay? Don't they look like
Taiwanese aboringines or Philippines Igorots? Don't they dress up like
them?

These people were already quite well formed and developed before they
left the Chinese coasts. They were already organized and fought wars
against the Qin Emperor and the later Han. The Chinese had a name for
them, the Yuet or Yue. They had leaders and political structure, as
described by the Chinese. One such leader, whom I forgot the name, was
a nemesis to the Qin Emperor Shih Huang Di. They don't sound in any
way underdeveloped. If anything, they may have regressed in their
island journeys.

Rgds,

Chris

>
>Regards,
>Paul Kekai Manansala

>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

[Yamane Kazuo]

In an article The Questioner writes:

> You are using the present tense when speaking of China-Japan trade.
> Yes, there is trade. Yes, Chinese went to Japan, Japanese went
> to China.

> These issues have nothing to do with my entire line in this
> newsgroup, which is simple: that the main settlers/conquerors
> of Japan, in addition to the Ainu, were Malays from Taiwan
> and the Philippines and Koreans from the Korean kingdoms
> of Kaya and Paekche. We can quibble over the details but
> this is the basic and irrefutable fact.

Fact? Stop lying.

[Tezza]

DirtySickPig wrote in message <3599259D...@worldnet.att.net>...

>Hey, down there! Can any descendant from aboriginal land bridge
>engineers say if the duck billed platypus is edible? The cultural
ramifications
>of platypus eating is mind boggling!

Goes great with wombat adobo and sinigang echidna .

[Don Kirkman]

It seems to me I heard somewhere that The Questioner wrote in article

<6nbv8b$d...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>:

[...]

>The Japanese are not ethnically in any way, shape or form of Chinese origin,
>but of Korean origin. The Koreans who settled and conquered Korea (Kaya and
>Paekche Koreans) spoke Korean dialects and the mixed with the Malays who
>spoke Malay dialects. Chinese words existing in Japan today are in NO WAY
>the result of any sort of large-scale direct Chinese cultural or trade or
>genetic influence. With the exception of certain scientific and certain
>specialized words of relatively recent Japanese coinage, the "Chinese" words
>in Japanese came into the hybrid Korean-Malay creole that we now call
>Japanese simply because the Koreans used those "chinese" words as part of
>their own vocabulary.

>Analogous case: Biology and Geometry are Greek words, but fully and totally
>naturalized into English. When a native English-speaker says "biology" to
>another native speaker of English, the listener does not feel or believe he
>is hearing Greek. The Greek words, like the Chinese words that the Koreans
>adopted became fully naturalized into the second language. Now as for third
>countries. When the British brought English into Nigeria, Nigerians came to
>speak of biology and geometry. They were speaking English, not Greek, with
>various local Bantu accents and pronunciations. Nobody would say the
>Nigerians were speaking Greek, and nobody would say the Greeks colonized
>Nigeria, but so sad is the state of Asian Studies in the West, that the
>Chinese get the credit for all other Asian peoples' cultural achievements as
>the "default setting."

I had always though that words like 'biology' and 'geometry' were not
native Greek words, but English words deliberately formed on Greek roots
for use in scientific discourse following the Enlightenment [socalled].
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
[...]
--
Don
new...@abac.com

[The Questioner]

For Chrissakes, Don. I'm just referring to the naturilized use of foreign
words in a language without a direct ethnic importation. How about the word
"chaos?"

My whole point (this is a non-AngloSaxon word that is considered English) is
not to discuss (this is a non-AngloSaxon word that is considered English) at
what dates (this is a non-AngloSaxon word that is considered English) the
words biology or geometry came into English or were made up
synthetically(this is a non-AngloSaxon word that is considered English) . My
point was that they were Greek, and that the English settlers to the
place(this is a non-AngloSaxon word that is considered English) that became
the United States(this is a non-AngloSaxon word that is considered English)
who may have used Greek or Latin (is that more acceptable?) words were not
Greeks (synthetic or otherwise0, Latin Romans (synthetic or otherwise), but
English people (this is a non-AngloSaxon word that is considered English)
using Anglo-Saxon words and words from other origin (this is a
non-AngloSaxon word that is considered English) that were understood (this
is a non-AngloSaxon word that is considered English) together as "English."

The "Chinese" words in Japanese are there not because "the Chinese brought
them" nor because "Japanese went to Japan and brought them back" but because
Koreans, who in their own country had previously naturalized Chinese words
as part of their own Korean language, came to Japan, forming the non-Ainu,
non-Malay/ Austronesian population, as well as the rulers of Japan for the
last 2000 years. The way Japanese use "Chinese" words, characters and
meanings, and the way they pronounce them derive from the Korean settlements
in the early Christian era, when Koreans, NOT Chinese introduced writing and
"Chinese" classical education and letters to Japan.

Such was the remoteness and unimportantness of Japan to the Chinese, that
they had relatively little to do with Japan's cultural development until,
say, AD 1600. Until that time, Korean conquerors, settlers, scholars and
immigrants continuously supplied Japan with "Chinese" knowledge.
Don Kirkman wrote in message <35a2759c...@news.newsguy.com>...

>It seems to me I heard somewhere that The Questioner wrote in article
><6nbv8b$d...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>:
>
>[...]
>

[Robato Yao]

Wrong. Records from both Japan and China say otherwise. The Koreans
introduced Japanese to Chinese culture, but quickly, the Japanese knew
where they are coming from, and went to the source. There was great
direct contact between Japan and China during the period of the Tang and
the Sung. Even Marco Polo had described the Chinese capital as having
all sorts of foreigners, including Japanese. Take for example, the
martial art of Ninjutsu, whose origins can be traced to Buddist monks
who fled China. A Buddist Japanese monk attempting to carry the image
of the Kuannin (the Goddess Kannon for Japanese) was seawrecked in the
island of what is now Budoushan in the Chinese coast, to set up the
first temples of Kuannin in that island---a distinct reminder of the
prolific Buddist missionary route between Japan and China in the river
mouth of the Yangtze.

You really don't look at a map, do you? China is as close to Japan that
on a sailing vessel (and Chinese fleets have reached as far as Africa
and India) with good winds and weather, can reach Japan in a few days.
It's like taking a boat from Los Angeles to San Francisco. Chinese were
actively trading to South East Asian countries that are much farther
than Japan, and even build small colonies, like in the Philippines.

Go-on and Kan-on both have a more southern bent on rather than
show "Koreanization". Even the few words that came from the Sung
Dynasty was from the south, since the Sung was basically located in the
south.

It is odd that while the Japanese language related to Korean language in
structure and multilevel honorifics, there is far more Chinese words in
the Japanese language than Korean? Why? If Koreans continued to teach
Japanese language, the presence of Korean vocabulary should be much
greater than it is today. But no. Thousands and thousands of Chinese
words entered the Japanese language that they nearly match the number of
native words. This is not a symptom of second hand learning of the
Chinese language. This is a symptom of a very direct first hand contact
and learning acquisition.

Rgds,

Chris

>Don Kirkman wrote in message <35a2759c...@news.newsguy.com>...
>>It seems to me I heard somewhere that The Questioner wrote in article
>><6nbv8b$d...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>:
>>
>>[...]
>>

>>I had always though that words like 'biology' and 'geometry' were not
>>native Greek words, but English words deliberately formed on Greek roots
>>for use in scientific discourse following the Enlightenment [socalled].
>>Do you have evidence to the contrary?
>>[...]
>>--
>>Don
>>new...@abac.com
>
>

[eeb...@spice.cc.utexas.edu]

Robato Yao (cro...@kuentos.guam.net) wrote:

: In <6nh56o$p...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, "The Questioner" <conta...@thisnewsgroupplease.com> writes:
: >For Chrissakes, Don. I'm just referring to the naturilized use of foreign
: >words in a language without a direct ethnic importation. How about the word
: >"chaos?"

: >

The Han-Zi(Kanji in Japanese) can be read
in many ways. Because some words are introduced
to Japan from various times, even for the
same Chinese character, there are possibly
several pronunciations. I remember some
pronunciations are called "Wu Yin" in Chinese;
because they were introduced from the Yangtze
area of China to Japan. Noticeably a
prominent Japanese figure in the cultural acquisition
during Tang dynasty, Cao Heng(his japanese name
pronunciated in Chinese is A Bei Zhong Ma Lu),
served for Tang as an imperial official, and
established friendship with the great poet
Li Bo. Cao Heng late on decided to go back
to Japan. When the rumor that Cao Heng was
drowned on his way to Japan, Li Bo composed
a poem to condole him. It would be interesting
if some one can find out where Cao Heng took
the ship for Japan. Today's China or today's Korea?

Another prominent figure, his buddist name is
"Jian Zheng"(Jian: Mirror Zheng: real, true).
He was quite like today's passionate missionary.
He was very determined to bring his buddist school
to Japan, and took the sea route to Japan directly
from China. Of course, the trip was not eventfree.
However, he finally made it. After his death, his body
has been well preserved even today, which is
considered a national treasure in Japan. About
one month ago, there was a fire in the temple
(Tang Zao Ti Shi) where his body is preserved,
and his body was partially damaged. From this,
apparently the sea route was open.

It can be interesting to find out what routes
"Qian Sui Shi" and "Qian Tang Shi"(Japanese
scholars/artisans sent to China during Sui and
Tang) took to go to China. I remember there was
a series of articles on the routes on "Asahi Shibun".
Interested people can dig them out.

[Yamane Kazuo]

In an article The Questioner writes:

> For Chrissakes, Don. I'm just referring to the naturilized use of foreign
> words in a language without a direct ethnic importation. How about the word
> "chaos?"

[,,,]

> The "Chinese" words in Japanese are there not because "the Chinese brought
> them" nor because "Japanese went to Japan and brought them back" but because
> Koreans, who in their own country had previously naturalized Chinese words
> as part of their own Korean language, came to Japan, forming the non-Ainu,
> non-Malay/ Austronesian population, as well as the rulers of Japan for the
> last 2000 years. The way Japanese use "Chinese" words, characters and
> meanings, and the way they pronounce them derive from the Korean settlements
> in the early Christian era, when Koreans, NOT Chinese introduced writing and
> "Chinese" classical education and letters to Japan.
>
> Such was the remoteness and unimportantness of Japan to the Chinese, that
> they had relatively little to do with Japan's cultural development until,
> say, AD 1600.

Mind stop spreading such rubbish? Many of China's dynasties viewed
Wa important enough to send her a golden seal of friendship.
One in 57 AD[about 94% gold], the other in 3rd century[its
metallurgical characteristics
aren't known]. Relation with China continued but due to the turmoil
within China or East Asia in the 4th century, the next contact with
China was not until
the early 5th century. Where it's record in China's documents
describing
various titles given to some of the Wa kings.
During the 7th century, various envoy was sent to China,
such as Ono no Imoko's in 607 AD.
These type exchanges continued until Japan terminated her diplomatic
relation with
China around 838 AD.
The commercial trade continued carrying Chinese luxury goods.
After Song moved to consolidated China around early 900s, immediately
she sent
an envoy to Japan asking for the resumption of diplomatic relation.
By this time Japan seemed to had had enough of China's culture yet she
accepted diplomacy.
I could go on and on this. Even during the Tokugawa period when she
closed herself
off, trade with China, Korea, and Dutch continued.

[d...@telalink.net]

Are you guys sure that there is any connection other than loose
circumstance, between these Cantonese words and ketchup/catsup? After
all, didn't the tomato originate in the Americas? Wasn't ketchup
invented in New York?

dan

On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 09:28:40 -0700, Tansong Isda <Nat...@kayo.ano>
wrote:

>Chiew Lee Yih wrote:
>
>> What Malay in Malaysia call ketchup is actually soy sauce, I think
>> ketchup is Cantonese, 'khe' in Cantonese mean tomato, and 'chup' mean
>> sauce.
>
>No, kedjap is not soy sauce. It's a combination of spices and soy. Filipi=
>no style
>is with bananas for thickener.--
> =B8=B8=B8=B8 =B8=B8
><o )=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0 =3D<
> ``=AF=AF=AF``
>
>

[Tansong Isda]

d...@telalink.net wrote:

> Are you guys sure that there is any connection other than loose
> circumstance, between these Cantonese words and ketchup/catsup? After
> all, didn't the tomato originate in the Americas? Wasn't ketchup
> invented in New York?
>
> dan

The American version, yes.....tomatoes were added later, besides, Americans
considered tomatoes poisonous until late in 1800's. The rest of the world are
already eating them beforehand. Look at your historical trivialities, you'll be
surprised at what Americans think are poisonous, don't you also know that some
people in the Philippines also eat the tomato leaves? Americans(mostly) still
think that the leaves are poisonous....weired.

[Chiew Lee Yih]

On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 00:18:00 -0400, "The Questioner"
<conta...@thisnewsgroupplease.com> wrote:

>This is a request for any and all contributions regarding available data and
>comments concerning the little-discussed and much-avoided issue of Japan's
>Malay ethnic origins.
>
>The Japanese are known throughout Northeast Asian and Western scholarly
>circles for their racist inability to recognize their Korean origins.
>Similarly, the Japanese vigorously shun serious discussion of their Malay
>origins. The Japanese claim to be "unique," which to them means apart,
>separate and unattached to their neighbors. Much of this ideology derives
>not from ancient prejudices, but rather a straightforward national
>educational and political policy in the 19th Century bent on militarism and
>imperialism. Even after WWII, Japanese schoolchildren continue to be
>bombarded by the Media, politicians and textbooks with outright or veiled
>suggestions that Japan was not an aggressor, that Japan was a liberator, and
>that "victim Japan" is being attacked wrongly by Chinese, Filipinos, Koreans
>and the rest of Asia.
>
>My belief is that the Japanese "uniqueness" concept was an easy way to make
>Japan a military nation. It is always intellectually easier to send soldiers
>to vanquish "inferior" countries than to attack your brothers and sisters or
>parents, for that matter.
>
>Although the Malayo-Polynesian peoples are probably the world's most
>successful seafarers of the pre-modern age (Madagascar to Easter Island, New
>Zealand to Japan), the Japanese seem incapable of recognizing that without
>great difficulty, ancient Malays likely moved north from Luzon into Taiwan
>and continued island-hopping through the Ryukyus into the Japanese islands
>of Kyushu, Shikoku, Honshu.
>The northward Japan current additionally would aid any seafarer from the
>Philippines to Japan.

>
>My personal fields of study, knowledge and interest are history, linguistics
>and politics, but my knowledge of Malay history and culture is limited. I
>need your help in proving this theory. In Japan, one speaks of another
>Japanese looking "northern" or "southern". It seems OBVIOUS that the
>"southern" element (what pseudo-science at the disposal of the Japanese
>Right calls "Austronesian" or "Paleo-Chinese") is really Malay. The Japanese

>use language to twist and pervert reality and history. Sometimes they will
>speak of the Malay settlers as coming from "South China." This is a cute
>trick of deception. Malay islanders originally came from the mainland of
>Asia. Indeed, part of Malaysia is still on the Malay Peninsula, and even
>part of Thailand is ethnically Malay. But the Japanese aren't talking about
>Malays. They want you to think "Chinese." Just as they try to hide Korean
>origins by saying "China" or "Chinese culture" or "mainland' , "peninsular",
>"continental influences" "Manchurian" or "Altaic-Tungusic" they use the
>China-language game to deny their Malay origins. Their hope is that
>outsiders, especially in the West, know little about Asia except for Japan
>and China. Internally, they do nothing to encourage their citizens to learn
>Filipino, Bahasa, or Korean. They don't even teach English to their students
>well enough for most Japanese adults to get along successfully outside
>Japan.
>
>Following this posting you may see so-called "studies" presented by
>followers of the Japanese Rightist camp. Please be aware that Japanese
>"science" and "scholarly studies" financed and encouraged by the Japanese in
>the West equally have been bent against logic to serve the fascist racist
>goals of the Japanese authorities. They will go to great lengths to "prove"
>that Malays never set foot in Japan except as maids and bargirls, and they
>will brainwash themselves into believing that the Japanese "race" originated
>in Ice Age landbridges and other such unprovable claptrap, while patently
>refusing to analyze RECENT historical, archeological, anthropological or
>other history. One ruse, as far as Malay Japan is concerned, is the one
>where they take DNA from Taiwan and Japan and show no link. The Japanese
>seem mysteriously cut off from southeast Asian humanity. The Japanese,
>descendents of a mysteriously disappeared unnamed "southern" race just as
>they are supposedly descendants of a mysteriously disappeared unnamed
>"northern" race? Of course the Taiwan study is bogus, since most of the
>current population of Taiwan overwhelmingly originated either from post 1949
>mainland movement or Fujian Han Chinese settlement dating not much earlier
>than 1600 A.D. I would be very surprised if the study clearly and
>scientifically broke down Taiwanese subgroups into aboriginal Taiwanese
>Malay, part-aboriginal Malay, and Han Chinese test cases. Conveniently,
>Malay aboriginals of Taiwan are not tested alone, and their results is not
>compared to the general population of the Ryukyus and Japan. Moreover, one
>could further fudge "Japanese" results by stacking the Japanese deck with
>Korean genotypes, where there would be a greater likelihood of showing no
>Malay connection than with a truly widespread and scientific pan-Japanese
>test.
>
>I base my theory of the Malays as the original inhabitants of Western Japan
>(the Ainu were in the East) on the following observations, which to me seem
>OBVIOUS:
>
>1. Despite what Japanese Rightists and the regional sales managers of Japan
>Inc. would like us to believe, the non-Tungusic (Korean) racial element of
>the Japanese did not spring out of the earth. Like the Korean settlers,
>these people had to come to the Japanese islands from somewhere else. As the
>Han Chinese have been ruled out conclusively, Malay or Malayo-Polynesian
>Asia offers the only other possible neighborhood source.
>
>2. If they do not look outright Korean, Japanese look either completely or
>partly Malay. Speaking only of appearance, many such Japanese could fit
>invisibly into the Philippines, simply because their ancestry was
>pre-Christian era Filipino.
>
>3. Taiwan was wholly Malay until very recent Fujian Province Chinese
>settlement. There still are aboriginal Malay peoples living in tribal and
>hybridized Chinese existences in modern Taiwan. According to Ethnologue
>(check via your search engines), some of these peoples are linguistically
>linked to northern Filipino tribal languages. Of course! There is no reason
>to believe that linguistic connections could not be made to the Ryukyus and
>onward into Japanese main island linguistic dialectology, although these
>studies I suspect are generally supressed or unpublicized. Additionally,
>since relatively few foreigners know Japanese --and far fewer are even
>remotely competent in dialects other than the current Tokyo national
>standard dialect, the study of Japanese modern dialects and, more
>importantly, earlier dialects, is left overwhelmingly to the Japanese. This
>is the choke-point of information regarding Malay-Japanese history. I
>believe that owing to the continuing desire of Japanese authorities to
>discourage the truth and to encourage mythmaking or outright fantasy about
>Japan's history, no Japanese scholar will be given acclaim in Japan for
>proving Malay linguistic links to Japanese. Indeed, I believe that
>university promotions in Japan will be not coming to these brave scholars.
>Even if the facts are obvious, staring at them in the face, what Japanese
>university professor or student would willingly risk his or her career to
>prove the obvious Malay-Japanese connections? This is the reality in which
>serious scholarship is expected to operate in Japan. Of course, Japanese
>Rightist authorities
>
>4. The linguistic and racial map of Okinawa and the other Ryukyus are
>complex. My belief is that following the Paekche Korean conquest of Kyushu,
>some Korean local rulers in Kyushu with origin in the Kaya Kingdom of Korea
>left from Kagoshima to establish a Korean-like (or call it "Japanese-like")
>kingdom in Okinawa, which was home to a variety of Malay nationalities,
>speaking a variety of Malay dialects.
>
>5. Modern Okinawan dialects, like modern Japanese dialects, as well as the
>Japanese national language, are based on grammars used by speakers of early
>Korean Kaya and Paekche dialects of Korean, with the addition of Malay
>vocabulary, vowel harmony, and word stress and intonation, as well as Malay
>pronunciation of Korean words. This is how the Korean word for stone, "tol"
>becomes "tori" in Japanese. There are a relatively large variety of vowels
>in Korean that disappear in Japanese. This is because Malay vowels are used.
>If one wonders why a Japanese might emphasize the "t" with additional stress
>in a name such as "Sakamoto" one only need listen to how a Javanese
>pronounces "Suharto".
>
>6. Cultural aspects of the Japanese bearing remarkable resemblance to Malay
>analogs:
>a. The very pervasive Japanese smile, not at all common among Koreans, who
>are if anything stone-faced. Chinese are probably at a medium range between
>the two extremes. While all humans tend to smile when they are
>happy--particularly among friends-- Malays tend to smile A LOT, even when
>angered, even when nervous, etc. Informally, the Philippines has been called
>in things like tourist brochures "The Smiling Country." The smile in Malay
>peoples perhaps seems to be used as a protective device, a shield covering
>one's true feelings. A smile can show to an outsider a fearlessness. In
>certain Polynesian cultures, a smiling is also present, sometimes with the
>addition of the tongue sticking out (Maori warfare pose). Since Malay
>tribes in the Philippines have only a recent national culture, and since
>intertribal warfare has only relatively recently been ended, it stands to
>reason that this cultural aspect would be carried by varied Malay tribal
>settler groups to the Ryukyus and Japan.
>
>b. tatooing. This is a more common practice in certain Malayo-Polynesian
>peoples, not Koreans or Chinese.
>
>c. I believe the Kimono is a modified sarong, and the artistic graphical
>motifs of many of the kimonos remind me of Indonesian batik motifs.
>

May be the kimono we see today is Eastern Wu costume + Tang dynasty
costume + sarong + Austronesian batik + European influence.

>d. Certain early traditional styles of houses in Japan resemble certain
>Malay traditional dwellings.
>

Tang + Austronesian + Ainu

>e. puppetry. (although there are certain Korean puppet examples also)
>
>f. The wide-eyed warrior motifs in Japanese art. They do not look Korean,
>but rather look Malay.
>
>g. Certain local festivals contain Malay traits, as well as antiquated
>Korean Kaya and Paekche village traits.
^^^^
I thought Kaya is a coconut jam? (Jello in US English)

>I believe the Malay history of individual Ryukyu and Japanese villages and
>towns would be considered sizable and exciting if it weren't deliberately
>buried by Japanese authorities. If the authorities were not actively
>ANTI-history, ANTI-science, one would probably see Japan as a rich hybrid
>civilization. No, it probably wasn't Paradise. (No country was a paradise.)
>If we are to recognize that Japan up until very recently (19th Century) has
>been characterized by constant internal regional and local warfare and the
>lack of an effective, long-lasting, effective centralized authority, we
>could see how the Meiji era of "modernization" would naturally create an
>imperialistic Japanese war machine and mentality. The different peoples in
>Japan made war amongst themselves for a few thousand years. When they saw
>the advantages of Western style modernization, the rulers didn't see
>education as a tool for peace, but rather as a training ground for soldiers
>to fight in foreign wars. Isn't it remotely unusual to foreigners that
>modified military uniforms are still widespread among school uniforms today
>in Japan at the dawn of the 21st Century? The ethnic history and regional
>cultures of the Japanese and Okinawans were to be erased in order to create
>a fascist's notion of a unified, unique Japanese.
>
>My interest in this? I am interested in human rights. Through a powersearch
>option on Deja News http://www.dejanews.com one could see my comments
>regarding North American genocide against Native Americans, racism against
>Africans, America's theft of Filipino independence from the hands of
>Aguinaldo, Australian aboriginal genocide and the dangerous fascist One
>Australia Party. I shall comment and investigate other issues on every
>continent. My interest in the Japanese is that as the world's Number Two
>Economy, Japan is not a country that the world should ignore. Some Japanese
>politicians still talk of making slaves and prostitutes of its neighbors.
>This is not the polite Japan that foreigners are usually shown. This is the
>dangerous Japan that has veto power on so-called Japanese democratic parties
>when it comes to getting Japan to admit to its wartime crimes and to really
>teach its children its ancient and modern history. This is the Japan that
>very, very actively lobbies the world to gain a Permanent Seat in the United
>Nations Security Council.
>
>Some crazy individuals in the newgroups have suggested I am a hater of
>Anglo-Saxons and a Korean nationalist. I am not Korean, although I find
>Korean civilization fascinating and believe it has been grossly overlooked
>in the West, as has Malay civilization. For the record, I am Caucasian, and
>my ancestry comes from at least half a dozen sources in Europe, including
>the British Isles. I am American and I understand "American" to mean a
>person who is born in or who lives in America, not a term owned by any
>particular ethnic, religious or political group.
>
>I couldn't care less about my own ethnic origins, and I am very interested
>in all peoples of the world past and present, but I consider my enemy anyone
>who believes one people, religion or group is inherently better than
>another. Such talk agitates me into contributing to these newsgroups, which,
>ironically, are filled with would-be Nazis and would-be bootlickers and
>servants of the Nazis. As for my politics, I am a democratic centrist. I do
>not like aristocracts, monarchs or elitists. I have been privileged enough
>to have gained a first-rate education, but at the same time I can swear to
>you from first-hand evidence that prestigious schools also can produce
>MORONS, but simply because they possess a diploma from a "top" school their
>idiocies often are not challenged.
>
>Also for the record, I hate the crimes and murder of communists and detest
>their leftist, "liberal" and "progressive coalition" apologists and moles in
>Western intellectual circles. I'm sorry to interrupt this posting with this
>uninteresting personal info, but I know that when this article is posted,
>some crazies will try to get you to hate me. If you like the truth, and
>think that by people knowing the truth, knowing their origins, their
>history--including its crimes and glories, then people will have the basic
>tools to create a better world, then you probably won't object too much to
>The Questioner. Although I ramble far too much. Sorry.
>
>To learn about Korean origins of the Japanese read Professor Wontack Hong's
>book online free at http://iias.snu.ac.kr/wthong/paekche/eng/paekch_e.html
>You will need to download the adobe acrobat reader, which is also free, at
>http://www.adobe.com

Don't worry, when Malaysia become the strongest nation in the world,
Japanese will come kneeling, and ask us to recognize them as their
relative.
________________________________________________________________
|
Han Culturalist from Malaysia |
Chiew Lee Yih |
|
visit my home page at: |
http://www.angelfire.com/ma/chiewly/index.html |
|
I support the independence of Tibet but not Taiwan, |
why? visit: |
http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/time_line.html |
________________________________________________________________|

[Chiew Lee Yih]

On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 23:26:08 -0400, "The Questioner"
<conta...@thisnewsgroupplease.com> wrote:

>The amazing craziness of the Japanese nationalists is that they are capable
>of simultaneously discriminating against people and claiming their legacy.
>They have no problem living within these contradictions of decency and
>reality.
>
>The Japanese murdered Queen Min of Korea. This is well documented. They
>hated Koreans viscerally, told Westerners that the Koreans were completely
>different from them, but when they took power in Korea they did so using a
>vague statement that they came from the same root and therefore had ancient
>rights to rule Korea. Their creation of the Manchukuo puppet state, with Pu
>Yi married to a Japanese aristocrat was also to eventually usurp that
>domain. All this went on while the Japanese conducted biological warfare
>experiments on the Manchu, Chinese, Korean, Mongol and other residents of
>Manchuria. They spoke in extraordinarily racist terms about the Filipinos
>even as they said they came to liberate them from the Americans. Their
>"scholars" spoke of "Chinese" civilization in Japan as Chinese people were
>being bayonetted and raped by Japanese troops in China. They extinguish the
>Ainu, overexaggerating their alleged hairiness to suggest they are savages,
>near apes, while they tell Englishmen, Germans and Americans that they are
>"Proto-Caucasoid" in order to suggest that the Japanese themselves are
>nearly Caucasian.
>
>While you may have recognized that Japanese might be racist against
>Caucasians, they (is it just the "government, really?") will often go to
>great lengths to convince themselves and the rest of the world that they are
>more Caucasian than Asian. Only about five years ago or so I remember either
>a Japanese TV show or article that insinuated that the Japanese were really
>a European nation based on Japan's proximity to Russia!

Mars is less than a light hour away (1/8766 light year) from Earth,
may be we are all Martian.

Why not annexed Japan into Russia? After that, they can cliam
themselves as European.

________________________________________________________________
|
Han Culturalist from Malaysia |
Chiew Lee Yih |
|
visit my home page at: |
http://www.angelfire.com/ma/chiewly/index.html |
|
I support the independence of Tibet but not Taiwan, |
why? visit: |
http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/time_line.html |
________________________________________________________________|

>Well, if we have no
>trouble eliminating entirely the millennia of Asian-Siberian racial
>components of the Russian Far East, then I guess an INSANE PERSON might
>agree with that argument. Russians, 5,000 miles or so to the west are
>European and Siberia is technically under the control of Moscow, which is in
>Europe. And north of Hokkaido is Russian-occupied land. Therefore the
>Japanese are European.
>
>Mental illness is called mental illness because it is not rational.
>
>Rat wrote in message <3596F1...@cris.com>...
>>The Questioner wrote:
>>>
>>> The Japanese created the "Caucasian Ainu" fiction to suggest that the
>>> Japanese are deep-down, whites, and therefore, in the perverted context
>of
>>> 19th and 20th Century European and American colonialism, "entitled" to
>>> occupy and plunder other peoples' countries in the name of
>"civilization."
>>
>>The Ainu are aboriginal Caucasion people native to the northern
>>islands of Japan. The Japanese did not invent the idea that
>>the Ainu are Caucasion, and to suggest this is ridiculous.
>>The Ainu in appearence are obviously not of Asian origin as they
>>have absolutly no mongoloid traits at all. Ainu have promenent
>>noses, round eyes, brownish wavey to curly hair, and heavy beards.
>>The Ainu look nothing like Koreans, Manchurians, Koryak or Eskimos.
>>
>>The Japanese have always discriminated heavily against the Ainu,
>>and consider them inferior. The idea that the Japanese decended
>>from the Ainus is not only erroneous, but offensive to the Japanese.
>>The Ainu have been forced to adopt japanese dress, thier culture
>>has been wiped out, they are forbidden to speak thier native tongue.
>>Little is known about the ainu outside of Japan because the Japanese
>>to not want it to be known that the Ainu are the original people to
>>inhabit the islands, and have been displaced by the later arriving
>>Asian peoples who have become the Japanese.
>>
>>I also feel that the way the Ainu are treated in Japan are a good
>>indicator of how Japan feels about Caucasion people around the world.
>>
>>Also, please understand that when I say "Japanese", I am not
>>refering to individuals, but to the Japanese government.
>>
>>Rat
>
>

[Chiew Lee Yih]

On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 05:44:10 -0400, "The Questioner"
<conta...@thisnewsgroupplease.com> wrote:

>OK, Kazuo. First thing's first. We all agree that the Japanese are of "South
>East Asian" origin in part. Good. But you can't say they are part Malay?
>Would you go to France or Spain or Romania for that matter and say that
>Latin-speaking Romans from the Italian peninsula didn't have any role in
>forming the population of these nations? Are the Swedes related to the
>Germans? Are the Poles related to the Russians? Are the Syrians related to
>the Saudi Arabians? Finns and Kazakhs, they're related; but the Japanese and
>their neighbors? NEVER!
>
>You are such a great demander of detailed proofs. WONDERFUL!!! Just as we
>had to ask you to name the unnamed Tungusic people who came to Japan through
>Korea but who supposedly weren't Korean (you cannot because they were
>Korean), who, Kazuo, are the Southeast Asian settlers of Japan who had to
>come all the way through the Philippines and Taiwan and the Ryukyus but who
>were not Malay? If they were not Malay, who are they and where are their
>descendants now? The only other navigating people to come off the Asian
>mainland before the Malays and inhabit areas near Japan were the Negritos.
>Are they the Japanese ancestors? If not, why not?
>
>I do not give a rat's fuzzy ass about any Japanese theory or Western theory
>for that matter that writes the Malays out of Japanese history. If the
>Malays were not the people who gave the Japanese half their language and
>gene pool, then the Japanese Right should be required to name them, their
>specific site of departure and the location of their modern descendants.
>Surely we are not expected to believe forever that the "southern" element is
>a race entirely unique to Japan, but absent in Taiwan, the Philippines and
>elsewhere.
>
>Are the writers of history books, university professors and scholars of
>Asian history, not to mention the Japanese themselves, expected to have to
>wait until "proof" surfaces? I maintain the proof is obvious, and what is
>not obvious, is deliberately buried or surpressed.
>
>Japanese history should be taught starting from the obvious first.
>Unprovable supposed icebridge theories and Chinese Iceman theories should
>never be the first point of departure, but they are. Western scholars
>either blindly repeat Japanese myths or give them equal weight with more
>reasonable theories. Imagine if British schoolchildren were taught more
>about Britain and the Ice Age than about the Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings
>and Normans? (And imagine if data on the these groups had been aggressively
>suppressed from the public record or discussion.) Their twisted self-image
>would be more like what the Japanese Education Ministry has produced in the
>Japanese public. Absent real education, pop theories, either products of the
>Japanese Right or independent crazies and fiction writers masquerading as
>pop historians run rampant.
>In the environment of extreme ignorance, theories such as "Israelites Came
>to Ancient Japan" circulate. (See:
>http://www.ask.or.jp/~remnant/isracame.htm )

Einstein is Jewish, he indirectly nuked Japan with 2 A-bomb, as a
result, Japanese want to associate with this victor race.

When China were strong, 1/3 or noble in Japan said they were Chinese
descend. After China fuck up, they are no more Chinese, how wierd?

When Japan themselves become no.1, who will become their next
ancestor? Martian?

________________________________________________________________
|
Han Culturalist from Malaysia |
Chiew Lee Yih |
|
visit my home page at: |
http://www.angelfire.com/ma/chiewly/index.html |
|
I support the independence of Tibet but not Taiwan, |
why? visit: |
http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/time_line.html |
________________________________________________________________|

>The Japanese Right denies the obvious, delays, lies, confuses, and talks
>about theoretical people from 50,000 years ago before it can talk about
>people coming into Japan in the last few millenia. The Japanese cannot look
>at themselves in the mirror and see Malay and Korean. They cannot look at
>maps, which show the Japanese islands connected to chains of islands from
>the Philippines and Japan. The obvious is never the starting point to then
>be disproved by science. The obvious is to be AVOIDED at all costs. Foreign
>and Japanese scholars are to devote considerable discussion first to the
>bogus. They will conjure up bogus theories, only for them to be proven wrong
>twenty or thirty years later. This I am convinced is a strategic policy to
>wear out the rational opposition, exactly the way compensation for the Asian
>"Comfort Women" has been dragged out, waiting for them to die. The Japanese
>would like the Koreans to kill themselves off in one last war, and they
>figure that the Malay aboriginals of Taiwan will go the way of the Manchus,
>blending into the Chinese majority. Then the Japanese could come out with
>new theories for the gullible "scholars" in the West to repeat to another
>generation of students. With ignorance of minority or dead cultures, the
>West would believe the Japanese claims of uniqueness.
>
>I am glad you agree that all the Japanese know there are Southeast Asian
>origins to the Japanese. The interesting thing is that everyone is afraid to
>say "Malay." Don't you know that the French are proud that they are Gauls
>(Celts), Latins and Franks (Germans)? Is it so hard for the Japanese to use
>real names of real peoples to describe their ancestry?
>
>The Ainu are, of course, a Siberian people. They are not Southeast Asian,
>nor are the Koreans. To learn about Siberian peoples and the peoples of
>Alaska, a good book to start with is William W. Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell's
>"Crossroads of Continents"(Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press,
>1988--you could try the Asia Society bookstore. I think it's at http://www.
>asiasociety.org ) Although there is little here on the Ainu, one could see
>the neighbors of the Ainu. Sometimes the Japanese try to make the Ainu into
>some sort of incomprehensible "Proto-Caucasoid" when in fact they fit neatly
>into the Northeast Asian ethnic makeup of Siberia and the Inuit and Aleuts
>of Alaska. This is a great book to learn about Siberian shamanism, which was
>and still is a strong element in Korean traditional culture as well as in
>Koreo-Japanese shintoism -- Buddhism and Neo-Confucianism and Christianity
>notwithstanding. Lots of pictures and maps.
>
>The Ryukyuan (Okinawan) people are like the Japanese: a mix of Korean and
>Malay. If one wishes to classify a multiethnic people as belonging to one
>group, that can only be either a shocking oversight or a lie. This would be
>like taking a Filipino of Malay, Chinese and Spanish ancestry in order to
>conclude that the Philippines, Portugal, France, Italy, and Romania are all
>Latin nations.
>
>Kazuo, as you know, you could take all the Western scholars on Japan,
>Okinawa and the whole of Southeast Asia and together their numbers would be
>so small they could probably number no more than a few thousand. That
>includes morons and half-wits who barely know the difference between shit
>and shinola. How many of them are either infected with Western racist and
>neo-imperialist anthropological training or a 1950's era miseducation/
>brainwashing regarding Japanese origins? Most all of them, I believe. That
>is why you still can pick up books saying the Ainu are "Proto-Caucasoid" or
>that "the origins of the Japanese are shrouded in mystery." We are talking
>about either GROSS INCOMPETENCE or Outright Payoff.
>
>Memo to the World: Regarding Japan studies, the only studies you should be
>more skeptical of than those originating in Japan are those originating in
>the U.S. or Europe. They provide the Japanese Right with "cover."
>
>Yamane Kazuo wrote in message <3595d680...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...

>>
>>In an article The Questioner writes:
>>

>>> This is a request for any and all contributions regarding
>>> available data and comments concerning the little-discussed
>>> and much-avoided issue of Japan's Malay ethnic origins.
>>

>>Here you go again, if you are claim that there were no
>>Japanese insisting on South East Asian origin for their
>>early inhabitants then either you are very naive person or
>>dishonest. Don't look too good either way.
>>Many in Japan for years have been preaching the theory
>>that their early inhabitants of Japan, called
>>Jomon and its descendants Ainu people were of South East Asian stock.
>>This theory began to be contradicted by recent genetic studies
>>indicating
>>Jomon/ainu/Okinawans are of North East Asian group.
>>Now Questioner insist upon Malays in Japan yet datas are
>>showing up for her extreme south of her land, Okinawa,
>>that Okinawans[Ryukyuan] are "northeast Asian cluster group."
>>
>> "we find first that the three Japanese populations
>> including Ainu and Ryukyuan clearly belong to a
>> northeast Asian cluster group."
>> (American Journal of Physical Antropology, April 1997. pp.437-446)
>>
>>
>
>

[Chiew Lee Yih]

On Mon, 29 Jun 1998 15:58:43 GMT, ke...@jps.net wrote:

Before the European defeat Japanese, the Japanese would probably think
Ainu is ugliest people under the heaven, and then after they were
defeated by Caucasian, they suddenly find Ainu to be attractive.
(Pronouce Ah-i-nu)

My guess is that Japanese with more than average Ainu blood is heavily
representated among movie stars in Japan today, am I guess right?
Let's do blood test on all the Misses Japan. (Who represent Japan in
the Miss World and Miss Globe beauty peagent)

Another question, how many Ainu women that have tatooed their mouth
still alive?

________________________________________________________________
|
Han Culturalist from Malaysia |
Chiew Lee Yih |
|
visit my home page at: |
http://www.angelfire.com/ma/chiewly/index.html |
|
I support the independence of Tibet but not Taiwan, |
why? visit: |
http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/time_line.html |
________________________________________________________________|

>In article <3596F1...@cris.com>,

> R...@cris.com wrote:
>>
>> The Questioner wrote:
>> >
>> > The Japanese created the "Caucasian Ainu" fiction to suggest that the
>> > Japanese are deep-down, whites, and therefore, in the perverted context of
>> > 19th and 20th Century European and American colonialism, "entitled" to
>> > occupy and plunder other peoples' countries in the name of "civilization."
>>
>> The Ainu are aboriginal Caucasion people native to the northern
>> islands of Japan. The Japanese did not invent the idea that
>> the Ainu are Caucasion, and to suggest this is ridiculous.
>> The Ainu in appearence are obviously not of Asian origin as they
>> have absolutly no mongoloid traits at all. Ainu have promenent
>> noses, round eyes, brownish wavey to curly hair, and heavy beards.
>> The Ainu look nothing like Koreans, Manchurians, Koryak or Eskimos.
>
>

>This is silly and shows no knowledge of the appearance of the Ainu.
>The Ainu have been connnected with Southeast Asian people both in
>appearance and through genetics. Some genetic studies show relationship
>to Siberian peoples. The Ainu have mostly black straight hair, although
>they are rather hairy, this trait is also found among a number of
>peoples in Southeast Asia like the Batak and Jakun.
>
>They are usually shorter than the average Japanese and have similar
>nose and cranial structure to Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders
>and a similar dental complex. The latter is general part of the
>sundadont dental pattern common in Southeast Asia and the Pacific.
>They have brown complexions and do look anything similar to Europeans.

>
>The "Caucasoid" theory is indeed a manufactured one, but of Western
>and not Japanese origin. It was part of the old "people of the sun"
>theories that imagined a great "proto-Caucasoid" diffusion of all world
>culture. Naturally this was an inspiration to Nazi type elements and
>"Aryan" theorists.
>
>Here is a quote on the subject from sci.archaeology and an abstract
>on sundadonty from Medline:
>

>'Among anthropological problems in Japan are the re-
>lations between the Ainu, living in Hokkaido and farther
>north, and modern Japanese, and those between Japanese
>of the Jomon and Yayoi period. A discriminant analysis
>of a limited number of skulls (Howells 1986) found dif-
>ferences between the Ainu and the Japanese. The latter
>clustered in two major groups, one of which consisted
>mostly of southem and the other of northern Japanese,
>whereas most Jomon skulls clustered in a third group
>with Ainus. Modern Japanese skulls are markedly simi-
>lar to Chinese ones. Similar results are obtained by Hani-
>hara (1985). The analysis of a series of East Asian skulls
>with nine measurements suggested that in Jomon times
>Japan was inhabited by Ainus, and that a heavy infiltra-
>tion of migrants from the Asian continent via the Korean
>peninsula took place in Yayoi times.
>
>In bootstraps (chap. 2) they
>separate from this cluster 24 times of 100, twice as often
>as the next loose member, the Ainu, and then they usu-
>ally join South Dravidian members of the Caucasoid
>group, from whom they have a fairly small but poorly
>tnvestigated genetic difference.
>
> The Ainu have always attracted great anthropological
>interest and were considered Caucasoid by early (Euro-
>pean) anthropologists. Those least acculturated or mixed
>are very few (Omoto 1972, 1973) and live on Hokkaido,
>the most northern Japanese island, with a few on South-
>ern Sakhalin (USSR, 1500). They were in Japan before
>the arrival of modern Japanese, and there may have been
>reciprocal gene flow. The major physical characteristic
>that differentiates them from other Northeast Asian peo-
>ple, with whom they are tied by genetic and linguistic
>similarities, is their hairiness as well as the hair form.
>This was probably the major reason for thinking of them
>as having a Caucasoid origin, but there are also some
>other isolated Mongoloid groups other than the Ainu who
>show hairiness (Alexseev 1979). The Caucasoid origin
>is still a popular suggestion in classical anthropology,
>but other hypotheses have been advanced, for example,
>that they are related to Australian aborigines, or even
>that they are an independent "race" whose genetic simi-
>larity to Japanese is due to extensive admixture. Direct
>estimates of "purity" by analysis of pedigrees of the last
>three to four generations indicated an overall non-Ainu
>
>component of 40% in a sample studied by Omoto (1972,
>1973). It is not clear whether it is necessary to invoke
>sexual selection to explain the survival of a few, most
>probably genetic, traits characteristic of the Ainu like
>hairiness or hair shape. For the rest, the Ainu show no
>clear trace of Caucasoid ancestry. Omoto has also shown
>that the Ainu are Mongoloid, and not Caucasoid, on the
>basis of fingerprints and dental morphology. It is also
>possible that the Eta, the outcaste untouchables of Japan,
>are related to the Ainu (at least as judged from hairi-
>ness). Etas were strictly endogamous by law and are, or
>were, by profession butchers, tanners, executioners, and
>sweepers; the caste has not disappeared to this day and
>deserves study. Ryukyuans and Atayal aborigines from
>Taiwan were also thought to be related to the Ainu. The
>neighbors from whom the Ainu show the smallest genetic
>distance are the Hokkaido Japanese. This is not surpris-
>ing because they live on the same island; the next clos-
>est neighbors are the Ryukyuans (152 + 33). In the tree,
>however, the Ainu are outliers in the East Asian cluster.
>In the world tree (chap. 2), the Ainu show short-
>est distances from Tungus, Japanese, and Koreans; their
>distance from Australian aborigines is greater (though
>not significantly) than that of Japanese or Koreans from
>Australians; their distance from Caucasoids is perfectly
>comparable to that of Japanese or Koreans. On boot-
>strap trees, the Ainu leave the Northeast Asian cluster
>11 times of 100, second to Tibetans (who leave it 22
>times). When the Ainu are not with the cluster of North-
>east Asian populations, they are only slightly external to
>it, as outliers of a group including other Eastern popu-
>lations, but, unlike Tibetans, they never join a Cauca-
>soid group. It seems reasonable to discard the myth of a
>Caucasoid origin of the Ainu.
> Most probably, the Ainu lived all over the present
>Japanese archipelago, perhaps as early as Jomon times,
>and were largely replaced by invaders of Korean or re-
>lated origin in the first millennium B.C. and the following
>millennium. In most respects, they are northern Mon-
>goloids and fairly closely related to all populations from
>Northeast Asia. They probably owe their outlying posi-
>tion in the northern Mongoloid cluster (chap. 2) to their
>being of fairly ancient insular origin, but the genetic ef-
>fects of their ancient isolation may have been reduced
>by recent admixture with the Japanese.'
>
>--------
>
> AUTHOR: Turner CG 2d
>| ADDRESS: Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe
>| 85287-2402.
>| TITLE: Major features of Sundadonty and Sinodonty, including
>| suggestions about East Asian microevolution, population
>| history, and late Pleistocene relationships with Australian
>| aboriginals.
>| SOURCE: Am J Phys Anthropol (3T0), 1990 Jul; 82 (3): 295-317
> ABSTRACT: The eight diagnostic morphological traits of the Sundadont
>| and Sinodont divisions of the Mongoloid dental complex are
>| identified. Intra- and intergroup variation for these crown
>| and root features is plotted. The univariate frequency
>| distributions provide useful evidence for several
>| suggestions about East Asian prehistory, dental
> microevolution, and intergroup relationships. The case for
>| local evolution of Sundadonty is strengthened by finding
>| Australian teeth to be very similar to this pattern.
>| Australian Aboriginal teeth are also generally like those of
>| Jomonese and some Ainus, suggesting that members of the late
>| Pleistocene Sundaland population could have initially
>| colonized Sahulland as well as the continental shelf of East
>| Asia northward to Hokkaido.

[Chiew Lee Yih]

On Mon, 29 Jun 1998 21:39:10 -0400, "The Questioner"
<conta...@thisnewsgroupplease.com> wrote:

>Western "science" often used to describe the Polynesians as the "whites" of
>the Pacific. The "scientific" basis was that Polynesians usually had round
>eyes and body frames larger than what Asians were believed to typically
>possess. Rather than saying that Malays also had round eyes often and that
>diet could account for size, just as the average English Puritan settler to
>New England in the 1600's was only a bit over 5 feet tall but somehow got
>larger in later generations in America. Reason was not important, but
>colonialism was. Japan, Germany, England, France and the United States
>hungrily eyed Hawaii. One way of staking a "legitimacy" for a European
>takeover of Polynesian lands was to simply say, "they're white (or
>white-like), we're white, so we should own them."
>
>If a Western "scientist" , "anthropologist", "skull measurer", whatever, can
>only understand humanity in the simple terms of arbitrary racial
>classifications, that should be considered THEIR sins, and in the 21st
>Century, the CIVILIZED WORLD (if I may use a loaded term) ought forever toss
>out their textbook definitions based on 19th century "discoveries."
>
>Sometimes "pop anthropology" "pop history" and "pop science" is permitted to
>cross over into the general public's psyche as "fact." The reason for this
>is that so much of "actual" anthropology , "well-researched" history, and
>"real" science is bogus. Why? Because theories are not laid out by God, but
>by people. And people could be racist sons of bitches, or, at the least, be
>very ignorant of the subject they are pretending to be experts on. Even if
>they follow the scientific method and find that they are on shaky ground,
>are making false generalizations or are straightout lying, they will still
>figure a way to "prove" their original conclusion, even if it had no
>substance at all.
>
>Science, anthropology, history are OPINIONS. Some theories are stronger than
>others, but they originate from flawed human personalities, societies,
>institutions.
>
>(Do you hear me, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times? Come on, you're like
>the fat kid in the back of class who never read the assignment, but when the
>teacher calls on him he fakes an answer.)
>
>Examples of "Pop Anthropology" at the disposal of white racism, working from
>a white racist perspective, and financially rewarding to their originators,
>since there is a great white racist market still existing (it could be
>changed by education, but it is an old legacy that if not challenged head
>on, is usually the "default setting" for all "scientific" "historic" and
>"anthropological" discussions in the West.):
>
>1. The whole Kon-Tiki fiasco of Thor Heyerdahl, that Hawaiians created the
>Inca Civilization, so loved in American and European circles, was based on
>the ideas that the native American indians were, frankly, too stupid, too
>primitive to give rise to Peruvian Incan civilization. It had to have been,
>went the reasoning, that these poor sons of bitches needed some "white"
>Polynesians to teach the Indians how to make intricate stone fortresses,
>pyramids, irrigation systems, etc. The fact that no such structures existed
>in Polynesia was beside the point.
>
>2. Another amazingly well received, although thankfully scientifically
>unaccepted racist fraud was in the "Chariots of the Gods" books by Erik von
>Däniken, who had earlier been convicted of forgery in Switzerland. (You
>know that when a Swiss is convicted of forgery he must have been REALLY
>BAD.)
>His elaborate theory in the 1970's was that the Plains of Nazca in Peru were
>landing strips for extraterrestrial craft (as if they needed huge etched
>carved bird figures to find their way through space!). He also suggested
>that the Mayan civilization of the Yucatan in Mexico was "obviously" of
>alien origin.
>
>His books sold in the millions. Why? Because Whites had been educated to
>believe that Europe was the origin of all things civilized and that the rest
>of the world was barbaric. So when a guy eats fried chicken in Texas he has

>no idea that the chicken was an animal first domesticated in Southeast Asia

>thousands of years ago. When a woman in New Jersey puts ketchup on her

>hamburger she doesn't know that ketchup was a Cantonese sauce based on
>tomatoes, which originated by the cultivation of Native Americans in the
>Valley of Mexico.
>

Who civilized Caucasians? Martian too?

________________________________________________________________
|
Han Culturalist from Malaysia |
Chiew Lee Yih |
|
visit my home page at: |
http://www.angelfire.com/ma/chiewly/index.html |
|
I support the independence of Tibet but not Taiwan, |
why? visit: |
http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/time_line.html |
________________________________________________________________|

>The Japanese have a criminally evil education policy that keeps generation
>after generation of Japanese ignorant and racist.
>
>So do the Europeans, Americans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, and
>most of the rest of the world too.
>
>One wrong doesn't make a right, but we don't have to live with either wrong.
>
>Rat wrote in message <35982F...@cris.com>...

>>ke...@jps.net wrote:
>>>
>>> The "Caucasoid" theory is indeed a manufactured one, but of Western
>>> and not Japanese origin. It was part of the old "people of the sun"
>>> theories that imagined a great "proto-Caucasoid" diffusion of all world
>>> culture. Naturally this was an inspiration to Nazi type elements and
>>> "Aryan" theorists.
>>>
>>> Here is a quote on the subject from sci.archaeology and an abstract
>>> on sundadonty from Medline:
>>>
>>

>>Paul,
>>
>>I found your post to be quite educational, my knowlege of the Ainu
>>is from memory and the source material it came from is not as current
>>as the material that you included. It is obvious that you actually know
>>what you are talking about in regards to this subject, and I want
>>to thank you for taking the time to post some documentation.
>>
>>Kapayapaan
>>
>>Rat
>
>

[Chiew Lee Yih]

On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 12:11:49 -0700, Tansong Isda <Nat...@kayo.ano>
wrote:

>The Questioner wrote:
>
>> When a woman in New Jersey puts ketchup on her
>> hamburger she doesn't know that ketchup was a Cantonese sauce based on
>> tomatoes, which originated by the cultivation of Native Americans in the
>> Valley of Mexico.
>

>Very interesting and accurate description of the academe. But ketchup is
>Indonesian(Malay) and originally did not contain tomato. Sugar and tomato made
>it palatable to Americans (lots of sugar, Philippines has a version of course
>with bananas).
>Tomato came later.
>

What Malay in Malaysia call ketchup is actually soy sauce, I think
ketchup is Cantonese, 'khe' in Cantonese mean tomato, and 'chup' mean
sauce.

________________________________________________________________
|
Cantonese/Hakka hanculturalist from Malaysia |
(My mother is Hakka) |

[Chiew Lee Yih]

On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 18:19:03 -0400, "The Questioner"
<conta...@thisnewsgroupplease.com> wrote:

>Thanks for your support, Iskandar, and thank you for your articles
>encouraging us all to consider our common humanity before bigotry.
>
>I'm not worried about being bumped off by the Japanese Right for one simple
>reason: what I am saying is OBVIOUS. I don't have under my bed a land deed
>written by early Kaya or Paekche Koreans in Japan proving their authorities.
>I don't have under my bed what Kazuo Yamane referred to as a "small boat"
>made by Malay settlers with a Kyushu license plate dated 4,000BC. I don't
>have any skulls or slides containing blood samples or DNA strands. What I
>have you have, and anyone else has: an ability to see the obvious.
>
>What I am saying is not new. It is out there in academia, in university and
>museum basements, in papers published, discussed, debated and sometimes
>forgotten, accepted or silenced. Countless invaluable evidence is
>undoubtedly kept under lock and key in Japan, but anyone knows that people
>don't spontaneously generate from the soil. Most people know that humans
>living on islands had to come from either other islands or the mainland. The
>entrance routes around Japan, filled with stepping-stone islands across
>Southeast Asia and Korea naturally would leave human settlers to Japan
>eventually.
>
>All one needs to do is to look at the faces of the Japanese to see Malay and
>Korean, but first, one must know what Malays and Koreans look like. One
>must know what a Malay and a Korean sound like when they speak their
>languages. One must learn their histories and learn about their cultural
>traditions. Then the Japanese seem as easily understandable as they should
>be: a mix of the two. Japan is a timecapsule of some earlier traditions and
>ways that have died out in the two metropolitan civilizations and in an
>ideal world, it could be a cultural treasurehouse for not only the further
>investigation of Japanese history, but East Asian history as well.
>
>Getting rid of me would be a wasted bullet, because the world is learning
>about Korea and the nations of Southeast Asia more and more every day. Even
>with the horrible economic problems in Asia, the Japanese dream scenario of
>Asia as a Japanese "coprosperity zone" (colony) will never be realized. The
>world grows closer together. I only bring the obvious, and to the gaijin,
>who in the Japanese Right's mindset, account for nothing.
>
>My main limited goal here is to shame the international academic circles
>into doing the job that they should have been doing for the last 50 years or
>so at least. Instead, either being sad bootlicks, outright morons, or
>endowment-hungry lackeys of the Japanese Right, they have been on the wrong
>side of logic and history, and they have been criminally miseducating their
>students, intentionally creating yet another confused generation repeating
>19th Century Ainu "Proto-caucasoid" or vague "Austronesian theories" or
>"Chinese Ice Man" frauds.
>
>The time for looking at skulls and blood has past. The time to investigate
>the Koreans, aboriginal Malay Taiwanese and northern Filipino tribes is now.
>How could one understand Spain without having heard of Rome? This is the
>ass-backwards way that Western scholarship has gone about studying Japan, as
>if Japan were unique, as if it were INSANE or unnecessary to study the
>peoples living in the likely routes from whence early Japanese settlers most
>surely came.
>
>The pressure to accept the arguments I have laid out is unbearable in the
>West, the wall of lies is disintegrating, and it is a matter of years, not
>decades, when all self-respecting Western scholars of Japanese history and
>linguistics will accept much the same conclusions as I have written. The
>Japanese Rightist theories you have been reading for years will be
>universally accepted as the laughing-stock of the international academic
>community, as well they should be. I am highly irrelevant to this process.
>Without my participation, the collective weight of all the lies circulating
>would soon bring the whole theory of Japanese uniqueness or mysterious
>origins crashing to the floor like so much phlogisten.
>
>The real battleground is Japan, among the Japanese. My contention is that
>the race issue and Rightist -militaristic/nationalistic control over the
>educational system go hand in hand with Japan's supposed inability to have
>free and open international trade, to reform Japan's financial system, and
>to reform the political system in such a way as to create the real democracy
>that the Japanese people need and deserve. The Japanese public, lied to from
>infancy about "We Japanese" are told about their superiority so that
>whenever they see their system of government is screwing them into the
>ground they will at least be able to say "I am Japanese-- which is better
>than ...(fill in the blank)." Then they can either get drunk or play with
>another electronic gadget.
>
>The Japanese student is shaped into a myth-believing, obedient order-taker.
>Let's see how long the Japanese Authorities can hold up their system of
>lies, and how much longer the average Japanese will take it. I personally
>believe it will come crashing down suddenly, like the way the Soviet Union
>evaporated. Behind all the meetings of bureaucrats is a sweat, a long deep
>sweat that no matter how much money they could scrape up, the system is
>going to collapse.
>
A lot of Japanese men vote for whoever their boss told them to vote
during elections, and men told their daughter and wive who to vote
for. Is Japan really a democracy?

With this kind of "democratic" Culture, Japanese militarism can sprung
back in nanosecond, if their leadar decide that Japan should be
remilitarize again.

________________________________________________________________
|
Han Culturalist from Malaysia |

Chiew Lee Yih |
|
visit my home page at: |
http://www.angelfire.com/ma/chiewly/index.html |
|
I support the independence of Tibet but not Taiwan, |
why? visit: |
http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/time_line.html |
________________________________________________________________|

>Will the Japanese be intellectually prepared for the Japan that will emerge
>after the collapse? Will the world?
>
>Iskandar Baharuddin wrote in message <3596235A...@highway1.com.au>...

>>The Questioner wrote:
>>>
>>> This is a request for any and all contributions regarding available data
>and
>>> comments concerning the little-discussed and much-avoided issue of
>Japan's
>>> Malay ethnic origins.
>>>

>>snipped with great reluctance.

>>>
>>> To learn about Korean origins of the Japanese read Professor Wontack
>Hong's
>>> book online free at
>http://iias.snu.ac.kr/wthong/paekche/eng/paekch_e.html
>>> You will need to download the adobe acrobat reader, which is also free,
>at
>>> http://www.adobe.com
>>

>>One of the best postings I have ever seen.
>>
>>You will probably be hunted down and killed, but keep up the
>>good work anyway.
>>
>>--
>>Salaam & Shalom
>>
>>Izzy
>>
>>"Ciri sa-bumi, cara sa-desa" - Old Sundanese saying.
>>
>>English translation: "People all over the world are basically
>>about the same, but the way they go about doing things depends
>>upon the village they come from."
>>
>>
>
>

[Bandit]

Do you really have to include the WHOLE previous message and all the repiles
before it when writing a simple 2 paragraph comment?

Just wondering...

Tony Cook