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

The U.S. Census doesn't even consider them Pacific Islanders and even wikipedia consider them asian. I am sick and tired of flips claiming they are not asian.

Hmm...looks like a topic for the Filipino section???

I'm gonna say yeaaa..

duh, everyone nkows that already. or else taiwanese would be pacific islander too and I wouldn't face resistance in getting scholarships and $hit.

filipinos have been colonized and they still live with the mentality (not saying all, but some)
tisk tisk.

Does it matter?

there are 5 race in the world.

filipines is part of the 5th malay race

1. Caucasian race
2. Mongolian race
3. Ethiopian race
4. American race
5. Malay race

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

we are special to have oue own race and pacific islander is descdant of malayy race thats y they speak sister language to us and they practice the ancestral culture before it was tapped by that bigg spanish verga or mohamad's hijab!!

HA! Word...Why the f.ck is a Hmong so concerned about whether Filo's are P.I or Asians??

who cares what the US census says? there are no borders when it comes to race




now where would someone get the idea that Filipinos and "pacific islands" are related?

[

We're Filipinos! Period.

Racially, we're Austronesian mix and geographically Asians.

If you're Filipino, you'll know race means little in our culture. Some of us can be uber regionalistic, but never ethnocentric.

Please close this thread, mods. I'm getting sick and tired of this bullsh!t.

who the fu-k said i was hmong. I'm cambodian idiot.

i answered ur question soulja. pls address

That racial categories is outdated. The current one I think is

1. Negroid
2. Caucasoid
3. Mongoloid
4. Australoid
5. Capoid

If Indians can claim Asian, Filipinos can claim Pacific Islander, lol.

WELL the point is. since ancient times scholars believed a connection between filipines and pacific islanders. its relation can be discovered in language and ancestral customs (all the stuffs before spanish hispanicizations)

Anyone can be ethnocentric depending on what they believe and their views on race.

I don't mod this section either.

Maybe if these people are raised overseas but he is right filipinos are regionalistic and could care less about race.

are you a lying to us?

how can race be little in filipino culture. when filipino culture is 300 year of spanisness. didnt spanish instill values of descriminatory based on racial mixes.

if ur whiter in filipino family arent u the highest on the pedestal then if ur dark???

yess.. say yes, u know its geniunely true!!

Who cares?

Filipinos are Filipino..but to most Americans, we are just Asian.

Personally, I don't care. In all honesty though, I would like the Philippine government to be a bit closer to Asia than to the Pacific Islands for pragmatic reasons. On the individual level, we are all human, aren't we?

The Malays (of which most Filipinos are) are actually descended from Southern China, and in the past 2000 years, have moved (you can see a direct continuum of the migrations, the Philippines being last of them). Many Pacific Islanders are descended from the Philippines though, because of seafaring. If there are any Bicolanos here, some of the cultural practices done in Bicol mimic some of the practices of Western Polynesians peoples.

On a cultural level, we are an anomally. And damn proud of it too!

I for one was born and raised in the Philippines, so I know. You on the other hand just got yourself surrounded with coconuts. You know what coconuts are, don't you?

Coconuts are brown on the outside, but white on the inside.

I will say this again, Filipinos are not big on race, but have greater tendency to be regionalistic.

Excuse me, but i do not understand the difficulty one should fight to be accept in "filipine community" as though there is actual great benefits. is there a magnicifent temples or preserved ancient culture in the philipines? is there some cool authentic traditions to keep an interest. or is it just all a struggle to finally come on par to your level of filipineness that is being born there. what is the benefit for being like you sir???? are u poscessing something other than being born there. is ur stilt house amongst garbage and mangy dog the paradise of worldy existence? and do you believe to hold in ur pyche the one true answer for what is filipine identity, if its so much more refined than my status of being born abroad, maybe you people over there are not sharing it internationally with ur actions. because i surely dont fu-king think u got $hit!

Thank You and Peace the fu-k out! im done to be your little coconut right now. u really shud bless me for my interest tho! who else will do it, but maybe those old white aged men who want to go fu-king the young filipine girls who are ur neices and cousins for a fun time hunting a pekpek in manila.

Gee look who's talking. Ever heard of that marine who raped a girl in Subic? He got convicted and will serve 40 years in jail. Plus, we don't have the US bases there anymore, so the barlife is long gone.

In Guam on the other hand...there's no shortage of Chamoru pu$$y for the Americans, heck even Filipinos in the service gets a lot of Chamoru cherry pie.

y become emature in ur reply to me?
anyuway, if guam is suffering those indignitys as u know what. at least the kid is going to be born mix but identity pride with guam still intact. how come after so much historical influx of foreigns into a small island of guam there can still retain a native identity and concepts?? and compare it to filipines

what if a kid is born mix in filipines? they ere less filipine right and more to the foreign side, right. because ur proud to be mixed anyway! thats why theres no filipine celebirties in america, they're hiding on their mixes

southern china? I thought it was natives of taiwan.

And where do you think they come from?

just what might you be refering to?

Some of the dances, and the boatbuilding (this predates the Spanish era). I don't have the book or my primary source (my Uncle :P) right now, but I can scan it if you are really interested..

I don't see the connection between Filipinos and Pacific Islander other than those claiming it strictly to be cool. How can Indos and Malaysians be classified under Asians and not Filipinos.

Filipinos are Asian. Ejay is PI though.

What, my reply was immature? Well, you started it fool!!! I thought you like it rough.

Mix, half, Pure, or whatever...If he or she identify themselves more as Filipino, then they're Filipino.

Actually there are several celebrities with Filipino ancestry in America. Even in the field of mixed martial arts. Do you know this guy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Vera

He's half, but he's proud of his Filipino heritage, more so than some "pure" flips out there.

only those filipino who was borned outside claim there P.I and hey go to the philippines and ask any one in there if they they will say that they are asian.

damn i dont even what a pacific islander means geez


i agree

actually china is only a few thousand years old, where as formosa is ten thousand plus. It's like saying all europeans are arabs since they went through saudi arabia to reach europe

OMG that was dumb...China was one of the first Civilizations of Man.

nah, you don't have to go through the trouble, but thanks what's the book title?





Check this out:

Austric Peoples

The Austric-speaking people do not all belong to one homogenous racial grouping, yet there is definitely a predominant type to be found. Some Austric speakers are Negritos and Oceanic Negroids like the Aetas of the Philippines, the Melanesians and some of the Austronesian speaking peoples of New Guinea. Most Austrics, though, are basically a fusion of three primary races: Mongoloid, Austroloid and Oceanic Negroid. In India, specialists in this field have noted that the Austric-speaking peoples belong to a larger racial type that includes many non-Austric speakers and is closely related to the Dravidian racial type. In fact, it is often said there is little difference between these two types. They resemble each other in terms of superficial characteristics in a number of ways, which include:


1. Short to medium stature
2. Fair to very dark complexion. Generally brown-colored.
3. Mesorhinne nose, with greater breadth than length.
4. Slight prognathism, or full lips.
5. Dark, thick, coarse hair.
6. Slight but sinewy build.

On a more subtle plane, here are some less obvious resemblances between the two groups:


1. Large ratio of B type blood.
2. Rarity of A type, and especially A2.
3. Rarity of P2 gene.
4. Rarity of Rhesus negative,
5. Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase defiency and alcohol intolerance (ALDH).
6. The presence of enzymes giving malaria resistance.
7. Common occurrence of shovel-shaped incisors.
8. Low bi-zygomatic diameter.

The main differences of the Austric type in India from the Dravidian type include:


1. High forehead.
2. Short face.
3. Bulging occiput.
4. Rarer occurrence of prominent brow ridges.
5. Greater occurrence of Mongolian, or sacral spot. <-- did anyone have that when they were an infant?
6. Greater occurrence of epicanthic fold. <-- that flap of skin on Asian type eyes

Some of these differences, like the Mongolian spot and epicanthic fold, are obviously due to the greater Mongoloid blood in Austrics, although this is less apparent in India than in Southeast Asia. Some Dravidian populations in southern Tamil Nadu and Kerala, and along the border of Nepal also share these traits. This is aside from the presence of these traits due to Turko-Mongol admixture. Some of the similarities above are related to peoples of long presence in tropical areas.

The sacral spot is very common among Austrics, particularly in Polynesia, but less common among Dravidians than even the Arabs or North Africans. However, it is significantly higher than among Europeans. The high skull of Austrics may come from the Negrito-Melanesoid types who are known for this trait. One of the most distinctive traits is the short face which can be found from Polynesia to Madagascar.

Obviously, a great deal of naturual variation exists among these peoples. Some of them, like the Negritos, Batak and possibly the Ainu, are very short, while peoples like the Polynesians are one of the tallest and probably the heaviest of people. The same type of variation exists in South America, where the population is short, but the Patagonian Indians are one of the tallest of peoples. Also, in Africa, in areas where the population is among the tallest to be found, there are also Pygmy groups.


The Austronesians built ships with adzes and other tools of similar genetic affiliation, they used similar types of riggings, rudders, etc. and also the same method of sewing or fitting together the planks of their ships. These early Austronesians seemed to have all carried a few important domestic animals to almost everywhere they went: the dog, pig and chicken.

Where the Proto-Austronesian people developed is a sticky problem. Some think the region of the Southern Philippines and Eastern Indonesia was the likely area, while others favor either Formosa or South China. Around 5,000 B.C. blade stone tool technology reached the northern and central Philippines from the south. Wilhelm Solheim of the University of Hawai'i postulates that active maritime trade and migration was already going on in Insular and Mainland Southeast Asia by between 4,500 and 5,000 B.C. Eusebio Dizon of the National Museum of the Philippines believes this date can be moved to between 6,000 and 7,000 B.C. based on the most recent radiocarbon dating.

Sometime between 1,500 B.C. and 2,000 B.C., the Lapita culture of Fiji and Tonga developed. Therefore, we can safely assume that the Proto- or Pre-Austronesians had already reached many areas of either Micronesia or Melanesia to the West. The presence of Austronesians in Madagascar has been confirmed to at least the beginning of the era, although Solheim states that work to find the earliest habitation has not yet been completed. The lack of iron and Hindu-Buddhist influences, suggest an even earlier date.

The Austro-Asiatics were mainly land-bound, unless one accepts the theory that the Japanese are of Austro-Asiatic origin. Currently, the Munda languages of India belong to the Austric grouping. However, many experts believe that certain cultural items in India like the outrigger ships, the coconut, the betel, etc., may have actually been introduced by Austronesian peoples. Although no true Austronesian languages exist in modern India, studies have shown that there are such influences in both modern and ancient Indian languages. A good work summarizing some of the earlier studies done by Przyluski, Levy and others is P.C. Bagchi's Pre-Aryan and Pre-Dravidian in India.


Description of Language

The evidence points to the Austric family being originally agglutinative in morphology, or structure. Indeed, all still are agglutinative or partly agglutinative with the possible exception of the Miao-Yao dialects. Agglutinative languages attach, or glue morphemes together with little or no incorporation. This is particularly true of the verb root. However, often it is not the case with the pronoun and noun. Some of the features commonly found (although not universal) among agglutinative languages are:

1. Verb root tends to be uninflected with no incorporation of morphemes.
2. Words are often agglutinated into phrases or word sentences or equations. This does not happen in isolating languages, and rarely if ever occurs among inflectional ones. It is different than compounding which is lexical in nature, while this is grammatical.
3. Sentences, especially the word sentences, can often lack any active element.
4. Morphemes used in verb conjugation, noun declension, etc., often have separate existences. In many cases, the pronoun, or something close to it, will be used in conjugation, while the preposition, or something resembling it is used in declension of the noun.
5. Distinction of nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc., is less pronounced than in inflectional languages. Roots are commonly used interchangeably as verb, noun, adjective and adverb, often by change of accent or addition of affixes.
6. The languages tend to be terse in nature.
7. They tend to promote unity of ideas rather than specificity.
8. They tend towards exclusive and secret speech.



A study of certain Indic terms dealing with maritime navigation and the ocean might also be useful in determining how sea-faring Austronesians were able to have any influence at all in the region:

vahana"boat, raft," Sanskrit, from root, vah"to carry, bear."


waha "to carry, bear," Hawai'i, Maori, and:
waha - "boat," Ceram
bangka - "boat," Philippines
wangka - "boat," Malay, Indonesia
waka - "boat," Maori, Tonga, etc.
vaka - "boat," Vaturana, Savo, etc.
vaga - "boat," Alite
va'a - "boat," Tahiti
wa - "boat," Mate, Lamenu, Nul, etc.
wak - "boat," Numer
paki - "boat," Fila
wakten - Port Vato


plava "boat," Sanskrit, probably related to pluta "bathed, wet," aplu "to bath, wash."

pulu "wet, wash, bathe," Hawai'i, Samoa, Tonga, fufulu "wash hands," Fiji, pari-pari "wet," Hanuabada,apre "to bathe," Isabi, abri su "to bathe," Emerum, pra "to bathe," Paynamar, piram "to wash," Madang and:
palwa - "small boat," Philippines
parao - "canoe," Tagalog
folau - "canoe," Polynesia
barau - "canoe,"Efate
farau - "canoe," Tahiti
volau - "canoe," Fiji
poruku - "canoe," Futuna
palahu - "canoe," Indonesia
prau - "canoe," Indonesia
broa - "canoe," Formosa

Austric Influence in India

"asian" in the states and "asian in the philippines are two different things. when you say you're asian in the states, you are saying you are oriental with chineseey eyes. when you say you're asian in the philippines you are just saying youre from continental asia. but we're as asian as a guy from India so i dont see the fascination with using the term "asian" to describe us when asian isnt a race or ethnicity, just a freaking continent. austronesian or malay is probably the more correct term. why the fascination with being grouped with the chinese and japanese.

southeast asian i dont mind, its true we're southeast asian

fu-k this just say your filipino period.

i think people are trying real hard to "cling" onto what they precieve as the superior culture which many would argue is "asian". and in the same time see pacific islanders as savages culturally with no history and dont want to associate themselves with those headhunters who have contributed little in terms of achievements and contributions to modern society

don't be a retard

SAMOANS TONGANS HAWAIIANS THOSE ARE THE REAL PACIFIC ISLANDERS, NOT FILIPINOS.

Most Samoans cant stand Filipinos. There was a diss song made from a Samoan music group in Hawaii towards Filipinos. It was sooo funny.

^okay.

Ilang beses ko ba kailangang sabihin? "We iz Blak"!! now shut the fu-k up!

^malaki din ba ang iyo? hehehe

Oo naman babe baka di nga magkasaya eh

Hi Enrico.

J/k, I know who you are.

I read in other topics filipino's complaining why people dont see them as asian's now that someone actually does most of you dont even want to be grouped with them so what do most of you want to be then? Filipino's sure look asian to me even why cant you just accept it really. Alot of filipino's just make it worse for themselve's.

Be proud to be asian because that's what the are to everyone anyway.


And again why do so many try to act so black ??

Name one in this forum! name one

So, care to explain why they don't like Filipinos?

I know a couple....they make fun of filipinos too.

Then fu-king name them, nong hinihintay mo pasko?

Look around you..........many just want to be filipino and nothing else thats good and all but in the end your still asian

Thats like ethiopia saying they no longer want to be considered africans but just ethiopian's even though in the end they are still black


And why are you getting all pissed for after all aren't you "black"

Why would we be here in af if we dont considered ourselves asians? and that "we iz black" thing was only a fu-kin joke, arent you familiar with the word sarcasm? To tell you the truth i dont know any member of filipino chat who doesnt consider himself asian then you come here with your " most of you dont even want to be grouped with them" them as in asians.

You said it yourself, there are some Asians who don't consider us Asians, then when we say we're not Asians, other Asians will get pi$$ed.

Do you really find it that difficult to understand, when we just consider ourselves Filipinos, just to do away with the bullsh!t of whether we're Asian or not? We settled for the middle ground, yet there are still people like you who aren't satisfied.