AsiaFinest Forum
Ad: 123Designing.com

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Luzon as the Lesser Song Dynasty and related topics, Not for Sinophobes.
Leox
post Jan 14 2012, 03:24 AM
Post #21


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 8-December 11
From: Philippines




QUOTE (ocrapdm @ Jan 14 2012, 03:25 AM) *
Maybe, but if that's the only way there is to raise their awareness, then so be it.

So... we should incite racial hatred to raise the awareness of racial hatred?... Wow.
While I have no doubt that would work, it doesn't sound like the smartest of plans.

QUOTE (ocrapdm @ Jan 14 2012, 03:25 AM) *
Not just Chinese-Filipinos, but even Mainland China. The "heroism" of China despite giving and lending billions of dollars to the Philippines and extending help in calamities has been consistently downplayed in favor of America. This is wrong. Most of modern Philippines has been built from Chinese-Filipino capital and money. There should be at least some recognition of that.

Everyone gives help for calamities even we do when China or Japan gets hit (not as much of course), someone gets hit we all give a little to help them that way we can rest assured that when we get hit we'll get help too, I think its a U.N. thing sort of like a global socialist policy.

When did they give us billions of dollars? I missed that bit of news do you have a link?

I do think we should shift away from America in favor of China for our economic development, but you seem to be overstating China's "heroism". They're businessmen they give us opportunities but they also seek their own profit. There are no heroes and philanthropists only good trading partners.

Every country works with its own interest at heart. Neither America nor China would ever go out of its way to save the Philippines. I'm not about to trade American heroism propaganda for Chinese heroism propaganda. There's much to gain from dealing with China but if you walk into a trade deal with China with laid back attitude and naively expecting their saintly generosity they'll squeeze as much money from the deal as they can and you'll end up with the least to show for it.

QUOTE (ocrapdm @ Jan 14 2012, 03:25 AM) *
If the Philippines government fails in its responsibility to protect the lives and assets of the Philippine Chinese, WE MIGHT AS WELL START our own country and government. I'm sure it'll do much better than the rest of the Philippines, JUST LIKE SINGAPORE, because it has the capital and the necessary education and workforce. Just like Singapore, a large chunk of upper middle classes will move to that Chinese state in the Philippines.

As of now, that's still a hypothetical situation, but as the number of Chinese victims in the Philippines rises, that situation is not too farfetched. Almost everyday there's always Chinese-Filipinos getting robbed, mugged, harassed, or dissed in an online forum or radio/TV commentaries.

Maybe in the new generation, we can find some champions of Chinese-Filipino rights and if the hate crimes are not solved by the Philippine government, we can even have champions of Chinese-Filipino sovereignty.

The culture differences of the current Chinese-Filipinos with the rest of the Filipinos as well as the rest of the Chinese are already wide enough. We constitute our own nationality/ethnicity, with about 60% of the "pure Chinese" in the Philippines having at least one Spanish or Filipino great grandfather and practice mixed Chinese/Filipino/Hispano-American culture and traditions.

Well sorry but I'd have to say that's crazy, we don't have the right to set up our own government on Philippine soil and take some land call it our own specifically just for us. That's the same thing Taiwan did and what Mindanao rebels currently want. I apply the same standards across the board, Mindanao rebels have no right to set up their own country Mindanao is a part of the Philippines, Taiwan didn't have the right to break away from China and then claim Chinese soil as their own if they left to some uninhabited island then fine, we Fil-Chinese also can't do the same thing. If you don't like the way a country is being run seek to reform it, if it won't change and you really don't like it then every person is free to leave and find a different country that suits them you can't just rebel and steal land. Unless you really are trying to be a rebel like the Abu Sayaff.

There are racial targeted crimes here but you appear to be exaggerating quite a bit, most of the victims of muggings, political and street shootings are Filipino. Kidnappings do seem to aim for Chinese for the obvious reason that a lot of business owners are Chinese, and the government fails at protecting pretty much everyone except the corrupt elite.

Also the Fil-Chinese community is tightly knit around here so arguably we're even more protected than the common Filipinos because of our combined influence.

You complain about us not being recognized as true Filipinos yet you propose that we actually segregate ourselves. Do you not see the irony?

Some extreme Filipinos may resent us out of envy but others have difficulty accepting us as true Filipinos because a lot of Chinese still consider themselves loyal to China, so they wonder if we're really one of them or actually aligned with China. Most of the things you post around these forums seem to enforce the idea that we Fil-Chinese favor China, which will only make accepting us more difficult.

I love China the home of my ancestral and cultural heritage but as a Filipino citizen I prioritize Philippine interests first and not China's. You shouldn't have divided loyalties unless you're a dual citizen and last I checked China doesn't allow dual citizenship.

So out of curiosity what is your nationality?

This post has been edited by Leox: Jan 14 2012, 03:49 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moppom
post Jan 14 2012, 04:30 AM
Post #22


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 87
Joined: 10-October 11




QUOTE (ocrapdm @ Jan 14 2012, 02:07 AM) *
LOL.

I said that there were a lot of Koreans and some Spanish Mestizos and Filipinos. What Anglo-Americans?!?!?!



http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?...22358&st=80

jst some quotes from post 81 by ocrapdm embarassedlaugh.gif


QUOTE
But the point is, you have been too much blunt in stating your opinion and we Filipinos practice Smooth Interpersonal Relations
embarassedlaugh.gif


QUOTE
And, your reply that Anglo-Filipinos don't look Nordics at all may be a generalization. I study at one of the exclusive schools in Manila, are a lot of them are Amerasians (most of which are Anglo-Americans) and I can tell you, they indeed have facial appearances and complexions that make them look like pure Caucasians, such as red hair, green eyes, and freckles.


was this exclusive school a chinese school ? :O you did say you went to chinese school your whole life.....hmmm....


QUOTE
I have lots of acquaintances with gray and hazel eyes and have parents who come from British people, and I can vouch that they indeed look more Nordic than the pure Britons I've ever encountered in my whole life.



yup ocraps "chinese school" did contain a lot of nordic looking brits according to this post.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ocrapdm
post Jan 14 2012, 04:38 AM
Post #23


AF Guru
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3,134
Joined: 15-December 06
From: Philippines, China, Spain




QUOTE (Leox @ Jan 14 2012, 04:24 PM) *
So... we should incite racial hatred to raise the awareness of racial hatred?... Wow.
While I have no doubt that would work, it doesn't sound like the smartest of plans.


Not really raising the level of racial hatred, but of racial awareness. Or rather, the awareness that some races have done things that benefited the Philippines (e.g. Chinese coming to the Philippines resulting to developmet of skyscrapers, malls, service sectors, et cetera), while others did stuff that harmed the Philippines (e.g., genocide of the Filipino people by the Americans during 1899).

QUOTE (Leox @ Jan 14 2012, 04:24 PM) *
Everyone gives help for calamities even we do when China or Japan gets hit (not as much of course), someone gets hit we all give a little to help them that way we can rest assured that when we get hit we'll get help too, I think its a U.N. thing sort of like a global socialist policy.

When did they give us billions of dollars? I missed that bit of news do you have a link?

I do think we should shift away from America in favor of China for our economic development, but you seem to be overstating China's "heroism". They're businessmen they give us opportunities but they also seek their own profit. There are no heroes and philanthropists only good trading partners.

Every country works with its own interest at heart. Neither America nor China would ever go out of its way to save the Philippines. I'm not about to trade American heroism propaganda for Chinese heroism propaganda. There's much to gain from dealing with China but if you walk into a trade deal with China with laid back attitude and naively expecting their saintly generosity they'll squeeze as much money from the deal as they can and you'll end up with the least to show for it.


Billions of dollars, if added altogether. Not to mention the Northrail and a lot of infrastructure projects that the Chinese from Mainland are doing. Mind you, the Americans haven't even left a FUNCTIONAL CAPITAL when they left the Philippines on 1946! If there's someone who is responsible to pull the Philippines back to its former glory through rebuilding of destroyed and damaged infrastructure, it would be the Americans. After all, the Philippines wouldn't be destroyed if we're not an American colony during the WWII.

True, neither America nor China would go out its way to save the Philippines just for the sake of it. But comparing the two, China is definitely the lesser of two evils. After all, there was NO history that the Chinese committed genocide against Filipinos (on the other hand, the Americans killed 1/3 of all Filipinos during the Fil-Am war of 1898-1902) or that Chinese colonized the Philippines (which is what the US did). Likewise, there's no cultural imperialism (Filipinos of today play basketball, speak English, and practice American traditions).

QUOTE (Leox @ Jan 14 2012, 04:24 PM) *
Well sorry but I'd have to say that's crazy, we don't have the right to set up our own government on Philippine soil and take some land call it our own specifically just for us. That's the same thing Taiwan did and what Mindanao rebels currently want. I apply the same standards across the board, Mindanao rebels have no right to set up their own country Mindanao is a part of the Philippines, Taiwan didn't have the right to break away from China and then claim Chinese soil as their own if they left to some uninhabited island then fine, we Fil-Chinese also can't do the same thing. If you don't like the way a country is being run seek to reform it, if it won't change and you really don't like it then every person is free to leave and find a different country that suits them you can't just rebel and steal land. Unless you really are trying to be a rebel like the Abu Sayaff.


Oh, but we do!! Remember, like I said, Chinese have every right to the Philippines? If you agree with that, then you'll surely agree as well that the Chinese, having roots in this country since the prehistoric times, can declare independence IF THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT DOES NOT DO ANYTHING TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENS who happen to have a different ancestry. And besides, most of modern Philippines is the product of Chinese capital and trade anyway. From the late 1700s onward, the only thing that keeps the Philippine economy alive would be the money coming from the Chinese-Filipinos.

And you might as well say that Singaporean Chinese don't have the right to set up their own government in what was formerly Pulau Singapura of Malaysia!! They seceded because they were forced to do so because they feel that they aren't protected. Later, Tunku Abdul Rahman, in a face saving gesture, "forced" Singapore to be independent. But in the outset, he already knows that S'Pore's gonna declare independence soon. He just hastened the process to save face.

It's not stealing land. It's just taking a bit or a parcel of what is ours through history (Chinese were present since the 9th century AD), bloodlines (60% of pure Chinese have minimal amount of Filipino and/or Spanish blood), and wealth (Chinese capital propped up Philippine economy until now).

Obviously, I belong to the "60% of pure Chinese with minimal Filipino AND Spanish blood. And that's the reason I am more vocal, because aside from my rights to the Philippines being a Chinese, I also have my rights to the Philippines since I have 1/8 Filipino and Spanish blood.

Actually, Mindanao people have the right to declare independence BECAUSE THEY AREN'T REPRESENTED WELL IN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. THERE SHOULD BE AT LEAST ONE SEAT IN THE PHILIPPINE SENATE FOR THE MUSLIMS, AND ANOTHER ONE FOR THE CHINESE. After all, the Muslims and the Chinese are the TWO LARGEST minorities in the Philippines.


QUOTE (Leox @ Jan 14 2012, 04:24 PM) *
There are racial targeted crimes here but you appear to be exaggerating quite a bit, most of the victims of muggings, political and street shootings are Filipino. Kidnappings do seem to aim for Chinese for the obvious reason that a lot of business owners are Chinese, and the government fails at protecting pretty much everyone except the corrupt elite.


Maybe, but then, even Amy Chua noticed that there seems to be a double standard when handling crimes involving Chinese as victims.

Look at the botched Hostage Taking Crisis in Luneta. If the tourists were Americans, the government would've acted quickly. But seeing that they are Chinese (basta not Whites), they just dismissed the incident.

And yeah, precisely, most of the business owners are Chinese. And so the government must be extra keen to protect the Chinese community from such victimization and culture of impunity. After all, the Chinese capital is the lifeblood of the Philippine economy.

QUOTE (Leox @ Jan 14 2012, 04:24 PM) *
Also the Fil-Chinese community is tightly knit around here so arguably we're even more protected than the common Filipinos because of our combined influence.


Yep, especially for the Christian (Protestant) Chinese community in Metro Manila , which is extremely tightly-knit and most people know each other.

For the most part though, certain communities are more attached to each other. Chinese-Fils from Quezon City for example, get well with Chinese-Fils from Caloocan and San Juan. On the other hand, the Chinese-Fil community in Makati and Alabang keep to themselves and many of them are partially Spanish or American (e.g., Ongpin, Uytengsu, Cojuangco).

QUOTE (Leox @ Jan 14 2012, 04:24 PM) *
You complain about us not being recognized as true Filipinos yet you propose that we actually segregate ourselves. Do you not see the irony?


If the Philippine government does its best to protect its citizens of Chinese ancestry and promotes equal representation of the Chinese in the Philippine parliament, THEN, THERE IS NO NEED TO SEGREGATE OURSELVES or to even go as far as to create our "own" country.

QUOTE (Leox @ Jan 14 2012, 04:24 PM) *
Some extreme Filipinos may resent us out of envy but others have difficulty accepting us as true Filipinos because a lot of Chinese still consider themselves loyal to China, so they wonder if we're really one of them or actually aligned with China. Most of the things you post around these forums seem to enforce the idea that we Fil-Chinese favor China, which will only make accepting us more difficult.

I love China the home of my ancestral and cultural heritage but as a Filipino citizen I prioritize Philippine interests first and not China's. You shouldn't have divided loyalties unless you're a dual citizen and last I checked China doesn't allow dual citizenship.

So out of curiosity what is your nationality?


I don't see anything wrong with being loyal to China. We see an upsurge of interest in Chinese culture and heritage (and increase in Chinese pride) among young Chinese-Filipinos nowadays, partially because of China's rising, and also partially, because of the perception of the Chinese as being "faux Filipinos".
It's GOOD AND NICE to be loyal to BOTH CHINA and the PHILIPPINES. China, after all, is our ancestral home, while the Philippines, is our current home. Both should be equal.


Ummm, actually, ALL OVERSEAS CHINESE are DE FACTO CHINESE CITIZENS. Chinese citizens of Republic of China (Taiwan), that is.

In case you don't know, YOU (as well as any other Chinese-Filipino) have the right to carry a Republic of China (Taiwan) passport and to run as a member of the R.O.C. (Taiwan) parliament, which has allocated 8 seats for Overseas Chinese. Many of my relatives carry R.O.C. passports for convenience, because they grant visas a lot more quickly compared when using a Philippine passport. LOL. I myself plan to use an R.O.C. passport also to be avoid the hassles of using a Philippine passport.

Anyway, so IF YOU THINK ABOUT THAT, we're EVEN MORE REPRESENTED in the Chinese parliament than in the Philippine parliament, which has no allocated SENATE or CONGRESS seats specifically for minorities including the Chinese.

This post has been edited by ocrapdm: Jan 14 2012, 04:42 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ocrapdm
post Jan 14 2012, 04:46 AM
Post #24


AF Guru
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3,134
Joined: 15-December 06
From: Philippines, China, Spain




QUOTE (moppom @ Jan 14 2012, 05:30 PM) *
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?...22358&st=80

jst some quotes from post 81 by ocrapdm embarassedlaugh.gif


embarassedlaugh.gif




was this exclusive school a chinese school ? :O you did say you went to chinese school your whole life.....hmmm....





yup ocraps "chinese school" did contain a lot of nordic looking brits according to this post.


rotflmao.gif

Well well, I am talking here about my Tertiary Education. Most Chinese go to mainstream Philippine colleges.

Whole life = childhood. LOL. Are you into semantics now, huh?

Gosh I just feel sorry for you. You must be extremely bored with your life so as to try tracing all my posts. Are you totally so in to me? Hahahaha. LOL embarassedlaugh.gif embarassedlaugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moppom
post Jan 14 2012, 04:58 AM
Post #25


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 87
Joined: 10-October 11




QUOTE (ocrapdm @ Jan 14 2012, 04:46 AM) *
rotflmao.gif

Well well, I am talking here about my Tertiary Education. Most Chinese go to mainstream Philippine colleges.

Whole life = childhood. LOL. Are you into semantics now, huh?

Gosh I just feel sorry for you. You must be extremely bored with your life so as to try tracing all my posts. Are you totally so in to me? Hahahaha. LOL embarassedlaugh.gif embarassedlaugh.gif



really, so in university you made posts such as

QUOTE
But the point is, you have been too much blunt in stating your opinion and we Filipinos practice Smooth Interpersonal Relations



let me get this straight

4 years ago you considered yourself a filipino
3 years ago, "not chinoy"

and now all of a sudden, you're chinese due to supposedly going to a chinese school full of spanish mestizos...



by the way, the other 10+ contradictions remain unanswered

such as when you said yo habla espanol was correct, and are NOW claiming it was a typo. LOL!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moppom
post Jan 14 2012, 05:06 AM
Post #26


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 87
Joined: 10-October 11




p.s


since when were nordic looking anglo americans prevalent in filipino universities? eek.gif embarassedlaugh.gif



i call more BS and flip flopping
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ocrapdm
post Jan 14 2012, 05:23 AM
Post #27


AF Guru
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3,134
Joined: 15-December 06
From: Philippines, China, Spain




QUOTE (moppom @ Jan 14 2012, 06:06 PM) *
p.s


since when were nordic looking anglo americans prevalent in filipino universities? eek.gif embarassedlaugh.gif



i call more BS and flip flopping


LOL. There are a lot of Americans in the Ateneo and La Salle. Even Britons, Swedes, Serbians, Dutch, and Polish! LOL. Obviously your comments show that you don't know a whit about the Philippines. embarassedlaugh.gif Because you're Australian.

Um, what's wrong in using "we" when referring to Filipinos. In many such instances, I use the word "we". After all, I consider myself to be Filipino as well, as can be read clearly above.

But then, you gotta admit, I know much about Chinese-Filipino culture, language, and workings that it's quite impossible for me to be not Chinese.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leox
post Jan 14 2012, 05:44 AM
Post #28


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 8-December 11
From: Philippines




QUOTE (ocrapdm @ Jan 14 2012, 05:38 AM) *
Oh, but we do!! Remember, like I said, Chinese have every right to the Philippines? If you agree with that, then you'll surely agree as well that the Chinese, having roots in this country since the prehistoric times, can declare independence IF THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT DOES NOT DO ANYTHING TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENS who happen to have a different ancestry. And besides, most of modern Philippines is the product of Chinese capital and trade anyway. From the late 1700s onward, the only thing that keeps the Philippine economy alive would be the money coming from the Chinese-Filipinos.

And you might as well say that Singaporean Chinese don't have the right to set up their own government in what was formerly Pulau Singapura of Malaysia!! They seceded because they were forced to do so because they feel that they aren't protected. Later, Tunku Abdul Rahman, in a face saving gesture, "forced" Singapore to be independent. But in the outset, he already knows that S'Pore's gonna declare independence soon. He just hastened the process to save face.

Filipino citizens have a right to the Philippines that includes Fil-Chinese yes, but the Abu Sayaff are also Philippine citizens they don't get to keep Mindanao and break away, because no citizen has a right to break laws.

Regarding Singapore yes technically they didn't have that right, if they forced independence that's effectively a revolution like America declaring independence from Britain. They didn't have the rights they wanted so they fought the system and won, it may have been for the best but that's still a rebellion.

Also if you go by this standard then you should support the independence of Taiwan, because clearly they felt the CCP didn't protect their democratic rights which is of course true since China isn't democratic. If every unhappy minority claimed a parcel of land and broke away from their nation it would be chaos.

You can expect most governments to take action, and that's not going to end well for our minority, besides we're doing pretty well for ourselves in the Philippines, there's no reason to incite a fruitless conflict.

QUOTE (ocrapdm @ Jan 14 2012, 05:38 AM) *
It's not stealing land. It's just taking a bit or a parcel of what is ours through history (Chinese were present since the 9th century AD), bloodlines (60% of pure Chinese have minimal amount of Filipino and/or Spanish blood), and wealth (Chinese capital propped up Philippine economy until now).

The Taiwanese were Chinese too, Taiwan is a part of their history so by your standard they didn't steal it either, yet I doubt China would see things the same way.

QUOTE (ocrapdm @ Jan 14 2012, 05:38 AM) *
Actually, Mindanao people have the right to declare independence BECAUSE THEY AREN'T REPRESENTED WELL IN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. THERE SHOULD BE AT LEAST ONE SEAT IN THE PHILIPPINE SENATE FOR THE MUSLIMS, AND ANOTHER ONE FOR THE CHINESE. After all, the Muslims and the Chinese are the TWO LARGEST minorities in the Philippines.

You support their rebel movement as justified?

QUOTE (ocrapdm @ Jan 14 2012, 05:38 AM) *
Maybe, but then, even Amy Chua noticed that there seems to be a double standard when handling crimes involving Chinese as victims.

Look at the botched Hostage Taking Crisis in Luneta. If the tourists were Americans, the government would've acted quickly. But seeing that they are Chinese (basta not Whites), they just dismissed the incident.

Well that's somewhat speculation, there's no question it was botched and our government should have apologized for that incident, but we can't really say what would happen if it were an American tour bus, I'm pretty sure our government would have botched it either way.

QUOTE (ocrapdm @ Jan 14 2012, 05:38 AM) *
And yeah, precisely, most of the business owners are Chinese. And so the government must be extra keen to protect the Chinese community from such victimization and culture of impunity. After all, the Chinese capital is the lifeblood of the Philippine economy.

Actually no they have no obligation to be extra keen with us, government protection shouldn't favor specific classes. It would of course be more beneficial for the economy to protect business owners but constitutionally we deserve no more than everyone else, and as far the the justice system goes in the Philippines we're ALL screwed except for those friends with select politicians.

QUOTE (ocrapdm @ Jan 14 2012, 05:38 AM) *
I don't see anything wrong with being loyal to China. We see an upsurge of interest in Chinese culture and heritage (and increase in Chinese pride) among young Chinese-Filipinos nowadays, partially because of China's rising, and also partially, because of the perception of the Chinese as being "faux Filipinos".
It's GOOD AND NICE to be loyal to BOTH CHINA and the PHILIPPINES. China, after all, is our ancestral home, while the Philippines, is our current home. Both should be equal.

Oh there's nothing wrong with warming up to China and appreciating ones cultural heritage, but if hypothetically if there was conflict between China and the Philippines and the Fil-Chinese community whom are Filipino citizens just sat it out, you should be able to understand why that might rub Filipinos the wrong way. We're hand in hand with them until we're forced to choose then we stay neutral, gives them the impression that they can't always count on us as Filipino citizens for the Philippines. I wish China would allow dual citizenships so that we would have a valid reason to stay neutral in such matters.

QUOTE (ocrapdm @ Jan 14 2012, 05:38 AM) *
Ummm, actually, ALL OVERSEAS CHINESE are DE FACTO CHINESE CITIZENS. Chinese citizens of Republic of China (Taiwan), that is.

In case you don't know, YOU (as well as any other Chinese-Filipino) have the right to carry a Republic of China (Taiwan) passport and to run as a member of the R.O.C. (Taiwan) parliament, which has allocated 8 seats for Overseas Chinese. Many of my relatives carry R.O.C. passports for convenience, because they grant visas a lot more quickly compared when using a Philippine passport. LOL. I myself plan to use an R.O.C. passport also to be avoid the hassles of using a Philippine passport.

That's only because Taiwan is trying to goad more chinese citizens over from China to join them.

the PRC sees it differently

Article 9: Any Chinese national who has settled abroad and who has been naturalized as a foreign national or has acquired foreign nationality of his own free will shall automatically lose Chinese nationality.


Besides the influential Fil-Chinese community of the Philippines bonding with Taiwan might add further tensions with China, and we all know the economic consequences of such a move.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
trismegistos
post Jan 14 2012, 10:43 AM
Post #29


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,412
Joined: 3-March 09
From: Los Indios Bravos' Mu




QUOTE (ocrapdm @ Jan 13 2012, 08:09 PM) *
Well, don't forget that Indonesians are also partly Daics. Some Daics also have O3, and that's where Indonesians probably got their O3. But see, Indonesians have much lesser O3 than do Filipinos. And in fact, I think it's safe to deduce that those with O3 are the ones in Indonesia with the lighter skin, while those who have darker skin (and look kinda Veddoid) are O2 or O1.

Amis are majority O1 not O3. As per the various studies done, MAJORITY OF Indonesians do have a lot of O2 and O3 but only a few have O1. That's why studies have presented that the Indonesians are much closer to the Tai people or generally speaking to people of INDOCHINA than they are to the Amis or the Taiwan aborigenes and so put an axe on the Taiwan origin of majority of Austronesians.

But whether Indonesians have fewer O1 or O3, that's not the point, where in fact, majority are O3's and O2's. The point of the crux is O1s, O2s and O3 subclades from Indonesians are definitely OLDER PHYLOGENETICALLY than those from China or even Taiwan. AND THUS POINTING THE SOUTHERN ORIGINS OF O HAPLOGROUP in general. Which is basically what the various studies presented by the likes of Chu et al and Su et al.

QUOTE
Likewise, the Ming Annals and other Hokkien commercial documents refer to Luzon as "liu-sung", considering it as part of the "liu-chiu" (Ryukyu) group of islands. Considering both Chinese and Indonesian, I think the word "liu-sung" has a meaning in Chinese. I guess it's just a place name in Indonesian. And in Chinese, it allegedly means :"backbone of the Song", being bastion for the overthrown Song rulers of China.[/b]

Backbone of the Song doesn't mean being the last bastion of the overthrown Song rulers. It could mean also the foundation of Song rulers. just kidding

But come to think of it, there are some evidence that some rulers or dynasties of China having southern DongYi roots much the same way as Japanese imperial had accepted their southern roots as well. Shang dynasty or is it the Xia had southern roots. Anyways, genetic evidence pointed to southern origins of the majority of the Chinese anyways.

Liusung as being backbone of the Song is just that an allegiation. But the more likely would be Liu-sung was more than anything else was just the way the early Chinese would try to speak the placename in the same how the Native Luzonians called their own land, which is LUSUNG OR LUSONG meaning mortar or crater to describe the shape of MANILA BAY, where the majority of the population centers are/were located.

Very much like Palembang in Sumatra was named Palin-fong by the Chinese not because of the meaning of Palin and fong but because it sounded near to how the natives called the native name Palembang.


QUOTE
Majapahit rulers? More like Majapahit envoys. The ONLY direct connection that the Filipinos have to the "other Malays" is through Borneans, specifically Bruneians. Never to Majapahit rulers from Java. And anyway, the endpoint is this: that Luzon's rulers were still foreign.

Envoys? Majapahit Prince Balagtas marrying the daughter of Sultan Bolkeiah and Emperor Angka Widjaya marrying the daughter of the NATIVE King of Sapa were mere envoys. embarassedlaugh.gif

Kapampangan researchers including the source of your theory have in fact aknowledged Prince Balagtas of Madjapahit as an actual historical person basing on the historical document found by Luther Parker in 1911, called the Will of Pansonum, which is written circa 17th century by a former Lakandula, Don Fernando Malang Balagtas, grandson of Prince Balagtas.

Don Fernando Malang Balagtas aka Pansonum would refer to his cousin Banau as Lakandula menor then christened as Don Carlos Lacandola. The former was usurped by the elder brother of Banau, Raha Matanda or Raja Ache who passed on his rulership to the last ruler of Manila, Raja Soliman.

QUOTE
Well, it's true. Kapampangans are the direct descendants of Taiwanese aboriginals from Taiwan and are not mixed with Daic (through Indonesian) blood. That's why the Northern Filipino peoples' languages such as Ilocano, Cordillera languages, Kapampangan, Gaddang, Ibaloi, and Ivatan are VERY MUCH SIMILAR to Formosan languages, whereas all the Central and Southern Filipino languages are grouped together and are similar to Bornean languages.

We don't agree on that of course for the longest time. The Taiwanese aboriginals came from the Philippines. Both Y-dna and mtdna studies pointed to the southern origins.

Sambalic languages which Kapampangan belongs too are very different from the Northern Languages. We can say it's transitional between the Northern languages like Pangasinan and Southern languages like Tagalog.

QUOTE
Yeah, Luzon people had a colony in Melaka. But Tome Pires, in his accounts, as well said that the Luzon (Lucoes) people had NO king but were governed by a group of elders. Perhaps he was referring to some islands near Luzon, or to some barangays in Luzon which were relatively independent of the Luzon Kingdom (Liu-sung-kuo).

Yes, he was correct. In fact, during those times, various datus had achieved autonomy and more like the decisions were given by the council of elders. And the titles Raja and Lakandula just prior to the coming of the Spaniards had become just like a figurehead or SYMBOLICAL ONLY unless he merited to be given the actual powers and authority inherent mostly important during times of war for e.g.

In fact during the time of the Spaniards, Datu Tarik Soliman of Macabebe chastised Don Carlos Lacandola, the Lakandula or supposed PARAMOUNT RULER OF LUZON KINGDOM for being coward and friendly to the Puting Mukha. Then Raja Soliman III explained to the Spaniards, that he had no real authority and thus despite the peace process or the blood compact, an invasion by the Macabebes and the Hagonoy people pushed through. For accdg to him, the people were quite independent and free to do any action they deemed necessary. Despite all these, the sons of Lakandula, joined Tarik Soliman of Macabebe and the Hagonoy warriors, some of whom died during that fateful Battle of Bangkusay, which sealed the future of the Philippines as a colony of Spain.

Another point would be that since the invasion of the Bruneians, the native Luzonians didn't actually accept the latter's dominion despite the intermarriages between the bloodlines of the native nobilities with the foreign ones. Plus there were contending factions, the Majapahit faction, the clan of Prince Balagtas with the former Lakandula, Pansonum aka Don Fernando Malang Balagtas and the faction of the Bruneians, the usurping Lakandula, Banau aka Don Carlos Lacandola together with his brother Raja Ache and his nephew Raja Soliman III.

Or as you have said, this is the way Austronesians go about dealing with political actions having to be a collective decision or CONSENSUS. That's how ORIENTALS do it since the dawn of mankind and that's how it would be for a very long time. That's REAL DEMOCRACY. MALAYA TALAGA ANG MGA KATULAD NATING MALAY NUON PA MAN. Being an archipelago, an empire to the truest sense of the word like the landbased ones is impossible. Majapahit and Srivijayan as I have said is more of a SYMBOLICAL EMPIRE and more of A THALOSOCRACY OR A COLLECTIVE ALLIANCE OR NETWORK POLITICALLY AND TRADEWISE.

QUOTE
Old Malay was understood throughout the "Malay" Archipelago because it was the primary language of the colonizers who styled themselves as rulers of the Philippine locals. The "native" royalty intermarried with the royalty of Brunei because firstand foremost, these "native rulers" were in fact migrants from Brunei. Seeing that the Filipino peoples were not united, chose to capitulate them and make them subordinates.

The Bruneians only came during the 14th century. Obviously, the native subjects have their own native rulers even before that. The Laguna copperplate inscription proved the eminence of the Ruler of Tondo. Even the Bruneian annals stated that Sultan Bolkeiah married the daughter of the vanquished Raja.

The back drop of invasion of the Bruneians was the Mount Pinatubo eruption in the 14th century, with the waning influence of Madyapahit and the rising influence of Islam, which could have weakened the Luzon kingdom to many substates or citystates ruled by petty rulers. Plus the fact that Zheng He invaded thrice but failed. It took twice for the Bruneians to succeed.

QUOTE
Brunei is also "east" of the Champa kingdom. embarassedlaugh.gif

No, it isn't, Brunei is not exactly East but South east. And Mas'udi specifically stated that the King of Khmer or Cambodia would face the east for morning prayers at the direction of the Maharaja of Zabag or Mihraj of Zabaj. The Arab's Zabag being synonymous to the chinese' Sanfotsi or Shih-li-fo-shih whom Coedes termed as SRIVIJAYAN EMPIRE. The Sun rises to the East and not to Southeast and so we have temples in Cambodia facing THE EAST WEST AXIS EXACTLY. The Khmer King wouldn't pray Southeast to the direction of Brunei as the Arab Mas'udi said. The Khmer King would do exactly the same facing that east west axis facing the MORNING SUN TO PRAY. And that is also THE DIRECTION OF THE MAJARAJA'S CAPITAL. And that's the Clue, Coedes got it wrong as to the location of Srivijaya's capital.

The location was described as rich in alluvial gold. During the mid-10th century, Akbar al-Sin states that:

"near Zabaj is a mountain called the Mountain of Fire, which it is not possible to approach. Smoke escapes from it by day and a flame by night, and from its foot comes forth a spring of cold fresh water and a spring of hot water."

The palace of the king of Zabag, again the Arab name for Sanfotsi, was described in Muslim texts as located at the water's edge of an estuary close enough to the "bay of Zabag" that saltwater flowed during high tide and freshwater during ebb. Such an estuary, it's been suggested earlier, was known in the local language as sapa, sabang or sapang from which the Arab place-name "Zabag" would be derived.

Abu Zayd said that the kingdom of Zabag faced China, probably referring to the southern port of Canton, which would have been directly across the Nanhai (South Sea) to the northwest.

This geographical description is confirmed by Mas'udi who states that the kings of the Khmer kingdom (Cambodia) face toward the kingdom of Zabag during their morning prayers i.e., toward the East, the sunrise.


QUOTE
I don't see why the Laguna Copperplate Inscription must be held in high esteem. It just talks about the AFFAIRS of foreign Bruneian rulers. Since it was a ROYAL document, it is therefore logical that it would use Old Malay and Kawi script with Sanskrit terminologies. Most likely, these Bruneian rulers are descended from Indianized rulers as well, so they just brought the Indian influence to their new colonies in the Philippines.

In fact, there are three other artifacts with undecipherable inscriptions: the Butuan silver strip (14th century), the Butuan ivory seal (10th century), and the Calatagan jar (15th century).

Again the invasion of the BRUNEIAN RULERS and the advent of Islam to Luzon came only the 14th century.

LAGUNA COPPERPLATE INSCRIPTION was not made by BRUNEIANS during the 10th century

No, the choice for Malay could have been the decision or the consensus of all the subjects of the Mihraj or the Maharaja of Zabaj whose reign span a lot of seas and isles with many different kings and kingdoms speaking a multitude of languages under his rule.

Much like the Indonesians chose Bahasa Malay as their lingua franca despite the Javanese dominate politics to unify the people of various languages.

QUOTE
So if one argues for the "MALAYAN/SRIVIJAYAN" colonization of the Philippines using the Laguna Copperplate Inscription, I might as well use the hundreds of Chinese artifacts and coins also dating back 10th century that are found throughout Philippine seas, especially in Luzon. Their numerical superiority versus Indo-Malayan artifacts of Hindu/Buddhist design shows that the Chinese did settle in Luzon, a fact now being acknowledged by many historians.

The Maharaja of Srivijaya or Mihraj's of Zabaj's capital was in the Philippines and so Srivijayan colonization? Anyways, there was no COLONIZATION...

It's more of INDIAN influence and alliances and intermarriages between the native rulers of the various Indianized independent states comprising the so called SRIVIJAYAN AND MAJAPAHIT THALOSOCRACIES which is not exactly synonymous to the western concept of EMPIRES. You can't have a cohesive empire which spans various isles spread wide apart by the seas as compared to LAND BASED EMPIRES. It's more like a political alliances and trading networks between various independent kingdoms or states, SYMBOLICALLY RULED BY A SINGLE MAHARAJA or Mihraj. Obviously a Maharaja in Luzon could not control the day to day activities of his subjects in Medang in Java for example. icon_smile.gif

Well yeah, if those Chinese artifacts can talk and say the Chinese ruled the natives. embarassedlaugh.gif
No, I am just kidding. There is no discounting the numerical superiority. The various wrecks containing the majorty of those artifacts were loaded from NATIVE SHIPS and not from Chinese junks or even Bruneian type of ships. So, the NATIVE TRADERS carried the trading the most.

But this fact would gladden a sinophile like you. That the Luzon people were often confused in Jakarta or Batavia as Chinamen because of the Chinese style clothing. Luzon traders actually had the monopoly of the China trade bringing chinese porcelain to those areas.

That's the reason, the Bruneians tried to break the monopoly of the Luzonians and invaded SELURUNG or Lusung. And so Manila under Srilela or Salalila aka Raja Soliman I was established c/o his father Sultan Bolkeiah aka singing captain Nakhoda Ragam to countercheck the primacy of TONDO in the china trade.

This post has been edited by trismegistos: Jan 14 2012, 11:26 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moppom
post Jan 14 2012, 11:22 AM
Post #30


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 87
Joined: 10-October 11




QUOTE (ocrapdm @ Jan 14 2012, 05:23 AM) *
LOL. There are a lot of Americans in the Ateneo and La Salle. Even Britons, Swedes, Serbians, Dutch, and Polish! LOL. Obviously your comments show that you don't know a whit about the Philippines. embarassedlaugh.gif Because you're Australian.

Um, what's wrong in using "we" when referring to Filipinos. In many such instances, I use the word "we". After all, I consider myself to be Filipino as well, as can be read clearly above.

But then, you gotta admit, I know much about Chinese-Filipino culture, language, and workings that it's quite impossible for me to be not Chinese.



no the truth is you are filipino, and started to pretend you were chinese somewhere around 2010. No one is impressed by your so called knowledge of chinese history as its all easily found on google if one cares enough to search for it.


3 years ago ocrap was saying "we filipinos", now he says "we chinese"

couple in the fact that you have yet to answer even 1 contradiction out of the 10+ you've made, and we've got an open and shut case of a flip flopping fraud right here.


speaking of which - if you really did go to university in 2007, its safe to assume that by then, you had already completed your 10+ years of education in chinese school?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sahaliyan
post Jan 14 2012, 11:05 PM
Post #31


AF Geek
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 197
Joined: 8-December 07




QUOTE (trismegistos @ Jan 14 2012, 11:43 PM) *
Amis are majority O1 not O3. As per the various studies done, MAJORITY OF Indonesians do have a lot of O2 and O3 but only a few have O1. That's why studies have presented that the Indonesians are much closer to the Tai people or generally speaking to people of INDOCHINA than they are to the Amis or the Taiwan aborigenes and so put an axe on the Taiwan origin of majority of Austronesians.

But whether Indonesians have fewer O1 or O3, that's not the point, where in fact, majority are O3's and O2's. The point of the crux is O1s, O2s and O3 subclades from Indonesians are definitely OLDER PHYLOGENETICALLY than those from China or even Taiwan. AND THUS POINTING THE SOUTHERN ORIGINS OF O HAPLOGROUP in general. Which is basically what the various studies presented by the likes of Chu et al and Su et al.

What crap are you talk about?The O3s among the Indonesians are mostly M7 and P201*(maybe the subclade of it P164*),and they are not the so called OLDER PHYLOGENETICALLY as you falsely claimed,in fact just subclade of O3,and there are more O1 than O3 in Inbdonesia,there are O1 and O2 but no O3 in Madagascar
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
trismegistos
post Jan 15 2012, 03:21 AM
Post #32


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,412
Joined: 3-March 09
From: Los Indios Bravos' Mu




QUOTE (sahaliyan @ Jan 14 2012, 11:05 PM) *
What crap are you talk about?The O3s among the Indonesians are mostly M7 and P201*(maybe the subclade of it P164*),and they are not the so called OLDER PHYLOGENETICALLY as you falsely claimed,in fact just subclade of O3,and there are more O1 than O3 in Inbdonesia,there are O1 and O2 but no O3 in Madagascar

It is labeled simply as exactly P201 and not labeled as P201* corresponding to that exact O3a3, the older subclade and thus older phylogenetically to both subclades M134(CHINESE AND OTHER SINO-TIBETANS) and M7(INDONESIANS). Linguistically speaking both Indonesians and Chinese belong to the Sino-Austronesian superfamily which of course included Hmong-Mien, other Austro-Tai like Tai-Kradai, Austro-Asiatics and other AUSTRICS.

Thank for the corrections for I have not the data at hand when I said that. But the point of the matter is, I am trying to prove otherwise the northern Taiwan origin of Austronesians as theorized and still accepted by many.

Karafet even concluded that the majority of Austronesians are of Paleolithic origins and not from the Neolithic excursion from Taiwan.

In fact, even the so called Neolithic Austronesian expansion seemed to be centered in the Philippines accdg to the most recent mtdna studies as precursor haplotype/s of the mitochondrial Polynesian motiff, the genetic marker for Austronesian expansion, is found absent in Taiwan and present in the Philippines.

I am actually talking of those subclades collectively as older and thus pointing to SOUTHERN ORIGINS OF THE CHINESE. As studies such as this... http://159.226.149.45/compgenegroup/paper/...122%20paper.pdf
and the various studies done by Chu et al as well as Su et all all pointed to the southern origins of O haplogroup.

O3 for e.g. originated in Southeast Asia 25,000 to 35,000 years ago during the last Ice Age and not 10,000 yrs ago during the Neolithic period in China as presupposed by many. The same goes for the other companion or brethren haplogroups O1 and O2 splitting from their parent NO and from that splitting from the phylogenetic parent K (MNOPS).

Even domesticated dogs originated in Southeast Asia... http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/12/south...dogs-again.html
Add to that the domestication of chicken from the Malayan jungle fowl, the domestication of pig, and the origin of glutinous rice and other aspects of Agriculture originated in Southeast Asia.

This post has been edited by trismegistos: Jan 15 2012, 06:01 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jonathanrhino
post Jan 15 2012, 03:23 AM
Post #33


AF Fiend
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 322
Joined: 30-June 06




QUOTE (Leox @ Jan 13 2012, 05:24 PM) *
I know these aren't directed at me and this isn't even the kind of topic I normally post on since I really don't care that much about ancient history, I'm more of a today and the future kind of poster, but I felt the need to comment on some things.
I'm pure ethnic Chinese myself and see no reason why that would make me less Filipino, my grandparents immigrated from China, but I was born and raised here as a Filipino citizen and never really learned how to speak Chinese even the Chinese school I went to didn't teach it well enough since everyone spoke english and tagalog anyway.
Sometimes it seems like you (Ocrap) are so "Pro-Chinese" that you're actually Anti-Chinese, I mean seriously with such statements as these...
It's almost as if you're purposely trying to piss people off at us ethnic Chinese instead of promoting something constructive, you appear to be trying to emphasize some kind of racial/cultural superiority like white supremacists "We started everything, we're so awesome". I get that your proud of your Chinese ancestry, so am I but geez tone it down and don't flaunt it. Post historical facts as you like, we shouldn't suppress information, but statements like that quote above are highly flammable.
Whatever empire historically held the Philippines anyway has come and gone, the only people who has a right to the Philippines today are Filipino citizens, and regardless of ethnicity if you make a livelihood here, pay your taxes to the Philippine government and have your Philippines' best interest at heart you are Filipino. One's race should be irrelevant, nationality is what counts, and what culture one practices is merely out of personal preference.
I don't know if I'm misunderstanding you or what, I'm just commenting on what it looks like and clearly other posters see it that way.


I'm glad that most of the Filipino Chinese are as enlightened as you bro. We are all in this country together. It's not as if we are like Malaysia where the premise is Chinese and Indians live in these islands at the pleasure of Malay bumiputras. We're more like Indonesians in a way where the policy is all are foreigners and all are indigenous. Any injustice done by the Philippine goverment to an ethnic Chinese Filipino is equally done to an ethnic Austronesian, even more so i believe.

I myself love going to China, I love the grandiose monuments created by thousands of years of habitation, but I am an ISEAn. We are a very independent lot. So are the Chinese migrants in these islands. They left the extreme poverty and injustice of Southern China to find a better life. That is our common history. Not Song china which is extremely irrelevant to modern Filipinos.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sahaliyan
post Jan 15 2012, 07:32 AM
Post #34


AF Geek
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 197
Joined: 8-December 07




QUOTE (trismegistos @ Jan 15 2012, 04:21 PM) *
It is labeled simply as exactly P201 and not labeled as P201* corresponding to that exact O3a3, the older subclade and thus older phylogenetically to both subclades M134(CHINESE AND OTHER SINO-TIBETANS) and M7(INDONESIANS). Linguistically speaking both Indonesians and Chinese belong to the Sino-Austronesian superfamily which of course included Hmong-Mien, other Austro-Tai like Tai-Kradai, Austro-Asiatics and other AUSTRICS.

Thank for the corrections for I have not the data at hand when I said that. But the point of the matter is, I am trying to prove otherwise the northern Taiwan origin of Austronesians as theorized and still accepted by many.

Karafet even concluded that the majority of Austronesians are of Paleolithic origins and not from the Neolithic excursion from Taiwan.

In fact, even the so called Neolithic Austronesian expansion seemed to be centered in the Philippines accdg to the most recent mtdna studies as precursor haplotype/s of the mitochondrial Polynesian motiff, the genetic marker for Austronesian expansion, is found absent in Taiwan and present in the Philippines.

I am actually talking of those subclades collectively as older and thus pointing to SOUTHERN ORIGINS OF THE CHINESE. As studies such as this... http://159.226.149.45/compgenegroup/paper/...122%20paper.pdf
and the various studies done by Chu et al as well as Su et all all pointed to the southern origins of O haplogroup.

O3 for e.g. originated in Southeast Asia 25,000 to 35,000 years ago during the last Ice Age and not 10,000 yrs ago during the Neolithic period in China as presupposed by many. The same goes for the other companion or brethren haplogroups O1 and O2 splitting from their parent NO and from that splitting from the phylogenetic parent K (MNOPS).

Even domesticated dogs originated in Southeast Asia... http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/12/south...dogs-again.html
Add to that the domestication of chicken from the Malayan jungle fowl, the domestication of pig, and the origin of glutinous rice and other aspects of Agriculture originated in Southeast Asia.

P201* means they belong to P201 branch,but not M134 and M7,as we can see,this branch(P201*) is common in Koreans,but no such thing as older subclades,because all modern subclades are descendants,not the ancestral type.If we use your logic,then M122*(O3*) only exist in China,but that means M122 origined in China
Even the southern origin of O3-M122 is true,that not means this branch origined in island southeast asia as you believe,this is zero possible,most likely this branch(or the ancestors of this branch) entered the east asia through the inland route,fron northeast india to Yunnan-Guizhou,then to northwest China.Surely this branch has nothing to do with the costal area,even the Chinese scientists like Shi et al(who wrote the paper claimed the M122 is of southern origin) admit this
And the STAN Theory is invested by sagart,but you missed his main point,he thought the STAN family origined in northern China,he thought the Dawenkou culture of northern China is the original speaker of Austronesian language
http://www.ranhaer.com/thread-16286-1-1.html
And people,you shouldn't call P201 as O3a3,since the tree of O already changed,please see Yan et al 2011 paper
An updated tree of Y-chromosome Haplogroup O and revised phylogenetic positions of mutations P164 and PK4
http://www.ranhaer.com/thread-15255-1-2.html


This post has been edited by sahaliyan: Jan 15 2012, 07:51 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sahaliyan
post Jan 15 2012, 07:40 AM
Post #35


AF Geek
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 197
Joined: 8-December 07




And you can see the anciet DNA of China
Y chromosomes of prehistoric people along the Yangtze River
http://comonca.org.cn/lh/Doc/A37.pdf
As the anciet DNA showes,the M134 only found in 1 sample of northern China(Taosi 2500BC-1900BC),no O3 found in southeast China(all of them belong to O1),and M95 is mostly found in middle Yangtze river9in hictorical Wucheng and prehistorical Daxi)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
trismegistos
post Jan 15 2012, 07:35 PM
Post #36


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,412
Joined: 3-March 09
From: Los Indios Bravos' Mu




QUOTE (sahaliyan @ Jan 15 2012, 07:32 AM) *
P201* means they belong to P201 branch,but not M134 and M7,as we can see,this branch(P201*) is common in Koreans,but no such thing as older subclades,because all modern subclades are descendants,not the ancestral type.If we use your logic,then M122*(O3*) only exist in China,but that means M122 origined in China
Even the southern origin of O3-M122 is true,that not means this branch origined in island southeast asia as you believe,this is zero possible,most likely this branch(or the ancestors of this branch) entered the east asia through the inland route,fron northeast india to Yunnan-Guizhou,then to northwest China.Surely this branch has nothing to do with the costal area,even the Chinese scientists like Shi et al(who wrote the paper claimed the M122 is of southern origin) admit this
And the STAN Theory is invested by sagart,but you missed his main point,he thought the STAN family origined in northern China,he thought the Dawenkou culture of northern China is the original speaker of Austronesian language
http://www.ranhaer.com/thread-16286-1-1.html
And people,you shouldn't call P201 as O3a3,since the tree of O already changed,please see Yan et al 2011 paper
An updated tree of Y-chromosome Haplogroup O and revised phylogenetic positions of mutations P164 and PK4
http://www.ranhaer.com/thread-15255-1-2.html

Yes, those statements are true for P201*, EMPHASIZED ON THE ASTERISK, which means at that particularly study was unclassified subclade of P201. Hence not M134 and M7.

Ok, listen carefully as I have carefully elaborated before.

What the Karafet study have shown an actual P201 WITHOUT THE ASTERISK. Hence the PHYLOGENETIC PARENT OF BOTH M134 AND M7.

Good thing, you have mentioned about the Dawenkou culture which preceded DongYi and Shang dynasty. All three are interconnected to the maritime and mercantilistic culture of the Austronesians.

Besides Stan, Solheim, Oppenheimer and Martin Richards often quote about the Dawenkou culture but these people believed that Dawenkou culture stemmed from the south.

Yes, I agreed that O3 originated inland that is MAINLAND SOUTHEAST ASIA which includes Yunnan. 30,000 years ago, Mainland Southeast Asia is called the SUNDALAND SUBCONTINENT, which includes the insular portion.

QUOTE
The eastern coastal peoples of northern China known as Dongyi were one of the Yi peoples often described as "maritime" and as having large ships ('tower boats').

Coastal Yi people inhabited the area southward to the mouth of the Yangtze and had trade relations extending further south. K.C. Chang used the term "interaction sphere" to describe these relations which often involved direct or indirect trade.

Dongyi culture is associated archaeologically most often with the Lungshanoid horizon and also to some extent with the earlier Dawenkou culture of Shandong. A relationship has been shown to exist between these traditions and the Liangzhu to the south, and even further south to the Neolithic coastal traditions near Hong Kong, which Solheim links directly with the Nusantao.

Shang civilization brought trade contacts with the South to a new high. So famed where the Shang as traders that in latter times the word "shang" came to mean "trader, merchant." The term "yi shang" combining the words "Yi" (as in Dong-Yi) and "Shang" came to mean "Barbarian Trader."

Copper, tin and lead used to fuel the Shang bronze industry came from the South, from Yunnan and probably from countries further south like Thailand and Malaysia. Tortoise shell, including that from sea turtles, used for divination and other purposes often came from tropical species.

Cowries used as money came at least from the South China Sea, and some cowries and other shells may have originated in the Indian Ocean. Elephant ivory and rhinoceros were imported from the Southeast Asian rainforests.

Cinnabar dye came mostly from Szechwan and other southern locations, and jade may have come from as far as Burma. Whalebone, on the other hand, likely originated in the northern seas. Nephrite could have come from Vietnam, Taiwan or Lanyu Island, or even from the Tarim Basin.

Generally though, the Shang and Dongyi operated in the eastern coastal and southern interaction spheres. It was the Lungshanoid-Dongyi who first begin exploring rice agriculture to a full extent for example.

These southern impulses verified by archaeology may explain the legends of Xihe of the Southeastern Ocean and the Hot Water Valley associated closely with the founding of the Shang clan and dynasty.


This post has been edited by trismegistos: Jan 16 2012, 06:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
trismegistos
post Jan 16 2012, 09:30 AM
Post #37


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,412
Joined: 3-March 09
From: Los Indios Bravos' Mu




I have rechecked the Karafet figures, rechecked what I've earlier posted and I'm right all along even before without at hand the exact figures. O2 and O3, collectively, are definitely the majority amongst the Indonesians. O-M95* alone account to more than half. And thus the conclusion of Karafet, that majority of Austronesians in Indonesia as Paleolithic. And O1 compared to the collective numbers of O2 and O3 together is fewer relatively speaking. But O1 on its own is still substantial accounting to more than a quarter in Western Indonesia(Austronesian predominant) and you are definitely correct that it's more than what O3 has on its own(12%).

QUOTE (trismegistos @ Jan 15 2012, 07:35 PM) *
It is labeled simply as exactly P201 and not labeled as P201* corresponding to that exact O3a3, the older subclade and thus older phylogenetically to both subclades M134(CHINESE AND OTHER SINO-TIBETANS) and M7(INDONESIANS). Linguistically speaking both Indonesians and Chinese belong to the Sino-Austronesian superfamily which of course included Hmong-Mien, other Austro-Tai like Tai-Kradai, Austro-Asiatics and other AUSTRICS.

Yes, those statements are true for P201*, EMPHASIZED ON THE ASTERISK, which means at that particularly study was unclassified subclade of P201. Hence not M134 and M7.

Ok, listen carefully as I have carefully elaborated before.

What the Karafet study have shown an actual P201 WITHOUT THE ASTERISK. Hence the PHYLOGENETIC PARENT OF BOTH M134 AND M7.

QUOTE (sahaliyan @ Jan 14 2012, 11:05 PM) *

What crap are you talk about?The O3s among the Indonesians are mostly M7 and P201*(maybe the subclade of it P164*),and they are not the so called OLDER PHYLOGENETICALLY as you falsely claimed,in fact just subclade of O3,and there are more O1 than O3 in Inbdonesia,there are O1 and O2 but no O3 in Madagascar

QUOTE (trismegistos @ Jan 14 2012, 10:43 AM) *

Amis are majority O1 not O3. As per the various studies done, MAJORITY OF Indonesians do have a lot of O2 and O3 but only a few have O1. That's why studies have presented that the Indonesians are much closer to the Tai people or generally speaking to people of INDOCHINA than they are to the Amis or the Taiwan aborigenes and so put an axe on the Taiwan origin of majority of Austronesians.

But whether Indonesians have fewer O1 or O3, that's not the point, where in fact, majority are O3's and O2's. The point of the crux is O1s, O2s and O3 subclades from Indonesians are definitely OLDER PHYLOGENETICALLY than those from China or even Taiwan. AND THUS POINTING THE SOUTHERN ORIGINS OF O HAPLOGROUP in general. Which is basically what the various studies presented by the likes of Chu et al and Su et al.





This post has been edited by trismegistos: Jan 16 2012, 09:49 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sahaliyan
post Jan 16 2012, 09:44 AM
Post #38


AF Geek
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 197
Joined: 8-December 07




QUOTE (trismegistos @ Jan 16 2012, 10:30 PM) *
I have rechecked the Karafet figures and I'm right all along even before without at hand the exact figures. O2 and O3, collectively, are definitely the majority amongst the Indonesians. O-M95* alone account to more than half. And thus the conclusion of Karafet, that majority of Austronesians in Indonesia as Paleolithic. And O1 compared to the collective numbers of O2 and O3 together is fewer relatively speaking. But O1 on its own is still substantial accounting to more than a quarter in Western Indonesia(Austronesian predominant).

Why grouped O2 and O3 as one?There is no reason to do so,and Karafet said in her paper
“The low frequency of O-M7 in western Indonesia (i.e., Bali, Java, and Borneo) and O-M134 in Polynesia most likely reflects recent connections with mainland China (see next section).”。
"Finally, Haplogroup O-M7 is a marker of recent Chinese Influence"。

This post has been edited by sahaliyan: Jan 16 2012, 09:45 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
trismegistos
post Jan 16 2012, 06:08 PM
Post #39


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,412
Joined: 3-March 09
From: Los Indios Bravos' Mu




QUOTE (sahaliyan @ Jan 16 2012, 09:44 AM) *
Why grouped O2 and O3 as one?There is no reason to do so,and Karafet said in her paper
“The low frequency of O-M7 in western Indonesia (i.e., Bali, Java, and Borneo) and O-M134 in Polynesia most likely reflects recent connections with mainland China (see next section).”。
"Finally, Haplogroup O-M7 is a marker of recent Chinese Influence"。

Arbitrarily grouped them(those coming from mainland Sundaland) as to separate from the supposed Neolithic excursion coming Taiwan(Bellwood).

This post has been edited by trismegistos: Jan 16 2012, 06:26 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sahaliyan
post Jan 16 2012, 11:03 PM
Post #40


AF Geek
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 197
Joined: 8-December 07




QUOTE (trismegistos @ Jan 17 2012, 07:08 AM) *
Arbitrarily grouped them(those coming from mainland Sundaland) as to separate from the supposed Neolithic excursion coming Taiwan(Bellwood).

But why we can't find O3 in Madagascar,if O3 was already present in indonesia that early?And in anciet DNA,we only find O3 in northern China?Sorry to say this,but O origined in your so-called Sundaland is zero possible,maybe NO can origined there,N and O both origined in east asia.From archeologist point of view,in LGM,the micro-blade culture spreaded from Siberia to the whole northern China,the southern border of Micro-blade culture is Huai river,many Chinese scientists thought the people of northern China invented the micro-blade independently,but it's impossible,because in northern China,before LGM,it's the Oldwan type(non-blade),I think some Mammuthus hunters fled from Siberia to northern China because of harsh environment,and the people of northern China adopted the Micro-blade,because northern China became part of Mammuthus steppe in LGM time,the environment forced them to adopted the Microblade
After LGM,the northern China became warmer,Mammuthus disapeared,so some animal hunters seeked animals to Southwest China,it's very clear,the Micro-blade culture spreaded to southwest China after LGM,and we can find C4al,C4a2,C4a3 and C4a4 in Tibeto-Burman population of both northeast india and southwest China(and Tibet)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microblade_technology
As for the origin of agriculture,again,from archeologist point of view,there is no evidence the agriculture origined in Southeast Asia,we find enough agricultural cultures of China,but in Southeast Asia,most people that time should be still hunter-gathers.The agriculture most likely origined in central China,in today's Yangtze river valley,when we find the first rice farmers of the history,the Hemudu culture,the Pengtoushan culture and so on.Even in the southern most provinces Guangdong,we can't find the early evidence of agriculture,the people of Guangdong were largely hunter-gathers till the historical time.
Accord to Sagart,the Taiwannese natives were milliet farmers before they adopted rice farming,and they origined in Dawenkou culture in today's Shandong province of northern China,and from there,they spreaded to the whole southeast asia and pasific
And people of southeast asia were negritos before the Mongoloid expansion,even the people of southern China in Neolithic time had some negrito features(for example the hemudu culture,the zengpiyan and other cultures all had the negrito features)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th October 2014 - 11:22 PM