Yes mongoloid race lets speak about it!

Well I wouldn't use the word "Mongoloid" because it's just a derogatory term that old western scholars came up with. I would just say "Mongol race" or "Mongolic race" or even more broad, Altaic people. Cause we all originated from the same place and at one point looked pretty much the same.

Althou we have same origin we are not living in peace togther some have lost their culture and the others think themselves to be better and not going to accept thier other brethren it's not good,it's too bad

^Whom?

95% of racial documents are written by Europeans. The other 5% are non-Europeans using European sources. Cute situation isn't it

So you can't expect a non-biased or non-discriminary approach as the system which was used to justify slavery and colonisation is still in place. However Europeans themselves are opening up their eyes somewhat, many have already thrown out those categories in favor of modern anthropology and genetics. Anyways Altaic is only a linguistic grouping, if you want modern racial groupings here it is (recent anthropologics):

Mongoloid Subraces:
- Ainuid race (remnants of aboriginal population in northern Japan)
- Tungid race (Mongolia and Siberia, Eskimos)
- Turanid race (Mongoloids hybridized with Caucasiods; Turkey, Hungary)
- Amerindian race (American Indians; various subraces)
- Northeast Asian or Northern Mongoloid race (various subraces in China, Manchuria, Korea and Japan)
- Southeast Asian or Southern Mongoloid race (various subraces in southwest China, Indochina, Thailand, Myanmar [Burma], Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines, the last four partly hybridized with Australoids)
- Micronesian-Polynesian race (predominantly Southern Mongoloid partly hybridized with Australoids)

Sources:
- Baker, J. R. (1974) "Race", Oxford University Press, New York and London.
- McCulloch, Richard, (2004) "The Racial Compact".

Forgot who it was who suggested southern Mongoloid to be classified as Malaijid, and 'Amerindian' is also known as Clovisian, though debate whether Clovisians themselves were from Northern Asian stock is still debatable. Though McCulloch is a bit of a contraversial author however, as he has views on racial seperatism in the U.S. and Nordicism. If he was a Nordic citizen of Norway, Sweden or Denmark -> I would support his views, but he's in the U.S., land of immigrants, so too bad for him. Some old anthropologists such as Carleton S. Coon (Not to mention even earlier ones) have been heavily criticised for his work due to his failure to study population genetics which modern anthropologists have studied aligning it to give more accurate results. Baker's work isn't bad, but at present there are way too many subraces for since genetics got involved. We also have a Turanid race now even, though they believe our traits are due to intermixing rather then proven facts of genetic drift (no caucasiod ancestry in many blondie/redhead Mongols).

It's hard for them to understand that the Yellow skined and Black haired thing is an adaptation to the region

In the Cold North you don't need that

PS Europeans except for south europeans migrated from Central Asia to their current location millenia ago. You don't see colour eyes in the South Europeans well verry few due to intermixing. Coloured eyes developed in CA i think due to it's climate. so people stayed in a similar climate some migrated to warmer places and lost the coloured eyes and lighter hair.

This goes both for Caucasoid peoples and Mongoloid

the French said the Australian Black Aborigenes were a mixing of Mongoloids and Afrikans .

^eeeh no there aboriginals they're related to Africans but not mongoloids


when people left Africa there were 2 groups one the future caucasoid/mongoloid group and the aboriginals who moved to australia and south india if i remeber correctly.

Tibetian high mountain was the fu-kin ambush

Aryans are Persians; what is so disturbing nowadays is as Hitler designed the Aryan Migration theory, all his theories were thrown out by intellectuals as pseudoscience but as a result, the Europeans went "Germans aren't superior, we are ALL superior" and invented Indo-European theory to cover things up. You expect anyone to believe that the Europid people came from Persia? I personally believe that people did migrate from Africa upwards to Europe however this is pre-historic, Europids and Aryans are much different.

The theory of "Light skinned, blond Hair, blue Eyed Persian rulers being the Aryan race" is incredibly stupid. It's called genetic evolution and drift fellas that made Europids who they are, not only that; If the Europids are really from Persia they would have brought with them the very technologically advanced civilisation with them -> they didn't. So I'm sorry that I don't support their theories trying to hide their primitive roots of European civilisation by attempting to relate to far superior civilisation known as Persia/Iran (Land of the Aryans).

I think they were speaking of the general geographic area around Persia/Mideast.

Most whites are just descended from cultureless apes running around in the forests of Europe though.

How do you explain other black people in Asia & the Pacific (Negritos & Melanesians) They look different from Aborigines.

Negritos in the Philippines:


Melanesians in the Solomon Islands:


Aborigines of Australia:


Negritos & Melanesians look African, Aborigines look like a race of their own. The look similar to Indians though.

Well racial studies even today are pretty limited and uninformed. It's probably always going to be this way, the human race is too diverse.

Yeah, they were infested by Altaic civilisation, so they are even wearing a Korean hats ^,.^

There's even debate of Scythian origins whether Iranic or Turkic. Have a look:

Only found Scythian script of Issık Kurgan burial site (3rd / 4th century B.C.):


Turkic Orkhon script:


Iranic translation:
"The vessel should hold wine of grapes, added cooked food, so much, to the mortal, then added cooked fresh butter on"
Turkic translation:
"Prince died at his 23. Farewell Esik people"



Haha, hey guess what? Politics have entered history!... Oh duh what's new ne ways
So yeah

It's somthing between moghols and uzbeks of Iran and Afghanistan moghols think themselves to be better than uzbeks because of som moghol painting and gardens and uzbeks think themselves to be better than moghols because they can speak in uzbek but moghols can't speak in mogholon.althou they both were and are under pressure of persians(in iran) tajiks and pashtuns(in afghanistan) they did not stand united against them they are only retreating from them

I'm both agree and disagree with you DNA dos not chages only with climate chages it's true than Aryans(indo europians) were in central asia and western siberia and they had coloured eyes and light hair and southern european are a part of Indo Europians but now they are mixed with other races and this is the part were climate is going to be important now a day latins are mixed Aryan having both coloured eyes and brown eye coromosome if now they migrate to for example siberia after a centuary they will have coloured eyes but if a group of indo europeans who are not mixed and don't havebrown and black eye coromosome migrate to a desert their DNA will not change.tatars are living in siberia for many centuarys but they haven't got coloured eyes becuase they don't have it's DNA and etc

both europeans and ancient persians are aryans and all camed from central asia ancient persian were similar to europeans untill Arabian muslims attacked them now they are mixed with semits I can speak in persian(farsi) they call (mother madar) (father pedar) (brother baradar) (door dar) (key kelid) (mort marg) etc

So, you think that the ancient Aryans were in siberia and far east in begining of the neolyth only to scribe their meaningless runes on protolaltaic languages only to pretend to be a neolythic autochtonous population? Ahahaha lol. Chinese ideographic system have roots somewhere in now inner mongolia, travel inner mongolia and watch ideographic system evolution on cave walls, etc. But it's not so widespread fact, would like the CCP to let their people to know that their writing system have an Altaic origin?!

Nonono, the true descendands of a Scythians are modern Toshicks population, although their language are more close to modern Persian. Toshicks are not anyhow close to modern Iranian people. The blue eyes are not the old persian people atribute, but far more modern.

Both waves of CA Iranians people just borrowed the Altaic writing system just like Hungarians onetime did.

No I think aryans were in central asia and south west siberia In modern day kazakhistan and I' not pretending anything about writing system.
and you should know the different betwean Persian and iranian persian are a group of iranians and scythians are another group of iranians and yes scythians were acestors of tajiks.
now a day there is no persian there is a new race call fars they are somewhere betwean ancient persians and arabians(semits).
better know I've no love for iranians to pretend anything about them .

Note this: When studying anthropology ALWAYS be aware that it's written by Europeans. Studying anthropology without such an awareness is exactly the same as studying the Bible and believing it was written by God (which in fact it's written by men). And as for your argument, Aryans were either Northern Indian or Iranic by origins, end of story. I do not believe they had albinic DNA from the start either and the whole Indo-European theory is already questionable as I mentioned below:



Fact remains that all humanity originated from Africa 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, that's a MUCH longer time then centuries or even millenia. And that's far more then enough time for genetic drifts to take affect. The truth is that DNA does not change so rapidly no, but it does drift, a scientific process called genetic drift. Same condition as albinism but much milder. Want to read about it? Here's a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift

To tell you the truth I USED to believe in the whole "mixed race" theory of my own people myself. Hell I used to even believe it out a sense of belonging being a non-pureblood Mongol myself. Heck even a few years I made a thread accusing my own people of being a mixed race. However, there's just way too much evidence against the theory now considering DNA tests showing no Caucasiod ancestry whatsoever in many of our own people. Besides, are Ainus white too? HA!

Realy now i mean realy R u being serious


ever heard of Slave Trade

Most of Mongols are C Y-DNA carriers, most of east and southeast asians are O Y-DNA carriers, most of american indians are Q Y-DNA carriers.

Let's shift to marker analysys

IMO, modern Mongolian and past Mongolian have slightly different DNA stream, you guys practically roam half way around the world. God knows how many foreign genes came thru that routes.

According recent East Asia Genetic Distance Study

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%...al.pone.0003862

Mongolian are more closer to Chinese people than any other asian people.

There's no greater difference between Modern Mongolians and ancient Mongolians according to mtdna analysis, most of Modern Mongolians, ancient Xiong-nu, ancient Xian-bei are/were M(sub-branch: D,C) mtdna carriers. there's 7%+/- H mt-DNA carriers among Halha Mongolians, suggests that Europeans were absorbed to Mongolian popluation later.

There's less analysis on anceint Y-DNA because of tech problem, but 3 samples of ancient Xiong-nu in egyin gol, Mongolia, were tested, they were C, N and Q carriers. C and N are predominated among modern Mongolinas and some Siberians, while Q are predominated among American indians.

60%+/- of Mongolians are C Y-DNA carriers, and 20%+/- of Mongolians are O Y-DNA carriers, while over 70% of Chinese are O Y-DNA carriers and every less C Y-DNA carriers among Chinese. In fact, the original groups of C carriers, O carriers and Q Carriers are far different. The closet brother of Q carriers are R carriers who are premodinated among Europeans and they got a common anciestor P, while P and O are closer brothers, they got a common ancestors F. F and C got a common ancestor CF who originated from Africa. The original Chinese and American indians are closer to Europeans rather than original Mongolians, only after they immigrated to east asia and America and mixed with local females who were M(sub-branch C, D, G, etc) mt-DNA, they begun to look like Mongolians. North Chinese got more M female ancestors rather than South Chinese, so they more looks like Mongolians. of course, Mongolians also absorbed few O Y-DNA carriers and N(sub-branch: B, F, etc,) mt-DNA carriers in history.

According to Y-chromosomes, English and Chinese are more closely related to each other than either is to Mongols. Interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup#Hu...DNA_haplogroups

LOL, that study's only based on non-sex chromosomes. Nice try, qinaman. Plus it only uses 200K SNPs, while most large studies in Europe use over 600K and a sample size about 10 times the significance. IMO, a very poor indicator to genetic distance. Non-sex chromosomes don't determine phenotype, most of it is actually junk DNA. Non-sex chromosomes aren't even supposed to be used for studying genetic affinities among populations, but rather studies on immunology.

The fact is that Mongolians are mostly haplogroup C3* or C3c. Genetic distance using Y-chromosome SNPs and STR show that they're closer to their Siberian neighbours and very distant from Chinese. It's pretty damn obvious when you compare the phenotypes of Mongolians, Chinese and SE Asians. Mongolians look very different from Chinese.

Here's a better determiner of whose really close to who. (might wanna enlarge image to see it better).



The study uses 650K SNPs. Yes, that's more than 3 times the significance of your little paper on 200K SNPs.

- It clearly shows Mongolians have some different genetic sequences different from Chinese/Japanese/Sino-Tibetan speaking groups.
- Clearly shows a relationship between Mongolians, Tungusic people and native Siberians.

650K SNPs, is still a small number compared to the several tens of millions of sequences in humans. With more SNPs, the data will be more valid and make more sense.

Haplogroup C is also dominant in Samoa, Polynesia and Micronesia.

It is quite frequent in Cambodia and Vietnam. It is fewer in China, but still occasionally find it.

Haplogroup C was probably earlier in Asia before the arrival of Haplogroup O. In China, it mostly likely got displaced by Haplogroup O, but it remains the dominant one in Mongolia/Siberia/Central Asia as well as Pacific Islands.

Whether Haplogroups N, O and Q started out Caucasian and ended up Asian is anyone's guess. The same can be said that Haplogroup R may have started out Asian in Siberia but gradually became more Caucasoid as the Indo-Europeans expanded into Europe and Central Asia. Just like Haplogroup C and D were the earliest Asians to come out of Africa, but today they look nothing like Africans.

Haplogroup C3 is not so close to the haplogroup C that came out of Africa. It's like saying haplogroup O2b1 is close to haplogroup O, but that's not true.

The haplogroup C* found among SE Asians is distant from the haplogroup C3* found in Northeast Asian mainland, such as Koreans, Tungusic people and Mongolians. Haplogroup C3c is found most commonly among Outer Mongolians, and it represents Genghis Khan's lineage.

It doesn't matter about the haplogroup though. What's more important is the SNP and STR variance. This tells us whether the haplogroup C3* found among Koreans is close to Tungusic people, such as Manchus, Nanai, etc. Same thing can be done for O3*, O2b1*, etc.

Chinggis Khan was C3(XC3c) carrier, C3(XC3c) are more popular than C3C among Inner Mongolians(Huhhot and Silingol) and Buryatians, while there're a bit more C3c carriers among Halha Mongols and Urianghai Mongols, and Khoton(Mongolia's Turkic group) and Kazakhs have more C3c carriers than C3(XC3c) carriers. So, I guess the original Turks were C3c carrriers and the original Mongols were C3(XC3c) carriers, they mixed with each other later.

Some of North Chinese also have many C carriers although most of them don't have, such as Heilongjiang(former northern Manchuria) Hans(20%), Gansu Hans(25%).


Male Demography in East Asia: A North–South Contrast in Human Population Expansion Times


The Genetic Legacy of the Mongols

I agree C's sub-branches C1(Japan), C2(Polynesia), C3(Mongolia), C4(Australia), C5(India) are not so closer with each other, Like F's sub-branches J(arabia), O(east/southeast Asia), Q(America), R(Europe), S(New guinea), etc, are not so closer with each other.

Another test for these are SNP and STR. It shows genetic distance using 2 components within multi-dimensional analysis.


Seems like Khoton Mongolians are genetic isolates. The other Mongolic groups seem to be related to eachother and to other northeast Asian groups.

There are theory of pre proto turkic people were c3d, so when various prehistoric Turks installed their states in now china they gave their male sex chromosome to han population

Doesn't matter what you say, Chinese O males and European R males are very closely related, a lot more so than European R males and European I males are to each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Y-chrom...DNA_haplogroups

O and R are both very young groups on the last level of the heirarchy. Sorry Mongols, despite your 100 years rule in China, you failed to displaced O with your C.

That's like saying a Mongolian A with haplogroup N is more closely related to a qinese with haplogroup O than to a Mongolian B with haplogroup C3. Your logic is dumb.

You have to take STR, SNP into consideration. And MTDNA. Males do have MTDNA.

Appearance is affected by the environment. Y-chromosome and mtDNA are the best at indicating ancestry, because they are not affected by the environment.

SNP is not useful at indicating ancestry because it's too arbitrary and researchers can tempt it by choosing certain SNP's rather than others. Heck there are millions of SNP's.

I seriously hope nobody takes the word Mongoloid as a source of pride since it was created by Europeans to be used as a derogatory word. It's like Africans using the N word as a source of pride.............but then again there are plenty of wanksters and rappers that do.

Yet again, the people of AF refuse to redeem themselves.

Oh, do you think so? So how do we have a mytohodries?

Well, I've discussed the issue of polygamy before with some steppe historians and it seems polygamy was only practiced by the leaders of the Khanates that much is true. Chingghis Khaan did screw a lot of women but he was only one man in the end, one hell of a horny one tbh. The average Mongol only had one wife. Those who were raped were immediately killed and mountains of skulls were erected so not too much genetic influence is evident except those relationships born of natural circumstance; north Chinese do tend to be mixed with Tungid racial blood especially Manchurians as well as many Europeans in Eastern Europe.



Nay, take the names our enemies give us and make it a source of pride my friend. I call myself a Mongoloid to their face proudly and I will proudly carry it to my grave. I will call myself weak of body though I'm well built, I will call myself short of leg, even though I'm six feet tall and normal for my people. I will call myself with subhuman genes even though I'm physically fit, strong immune system, 20/20 vision and individually superior to the common human.

I will call myself Mongoloid and accept their descriptions as it only serves me to make them look even more stupid!
I like it this way, I suggest you start to like it too.

In fact historicaly Mandarin speaking minority = Manchu mongrells, just look on Harbin people.

You realize how TERRIBLE the physical "descriptions" of Mongoloid are? I would NEVER call myself a Mongoloid. It's demeaning to my character. I am proudly an O (Y-DNA haplogroup) and I call myself that.

Of course it's terrible!
Still, I accept it out of irony

Same thing with the other titles I have been given individually; barbarian, roughneck, scum, primitive, savage. I accept them all even though I'm already the opposite. I just like making people look stupid :P

"Mongoloid" is a much better term than "Asian" since "Mongoloid" refers to a specific racial group. "Asian" is just a geographic term. It is very obvious that Mongoloids are racially different from Indians, Arabs, and Persians.

I notice that some people in this topic are confused and think "Mongoloid" is the same as "Mongolian." It's not. The word "Mongoloid" applies to all Oriental-looking people like East Asians, Altaic nomads, many Southeast Asians, Siberian natives, Eskimos, etc.