NationStates

I suppose I fit into the "Middle Eastern" because I'm Indian...

Shikihara wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:Could have something to do with this site being used in some American schools.

Or this being a website in English, and white people having more access to the internet.

and the fact that people from western Europe and the North America (a majority of which are Caucasian) tend to be more politically aware (which, let's be honest the politically aware people (or, at least, people who know something about politics, if at all) are the target audience for this site)

Neutraligon wrote:

Zion Imperium wrote:Judging from the poll we are quite pasty here on Nationstates

Could have something to do with this site being used in some American schools.

My school down in Miami actually had it blocked.

Merni wrote:I suppose I fit into the "Middle Eastern" because I'm Indian...

Eeh, the silliness of race polls.
A Moroccan (that is from Northwest Africa, aka Maghreb) would be classified in "Middle Eastern", but there's no "South Asian" poll.

Race classifications are idiotic anyway, just like any government that uses them.

I'm an Indonesian-Malay. So, I vote "Asian (Far East)". You should add "Asian (Southeast)".

Trumptonium wrote:they are semitic from proto-europeans.

Nope. They're the actual "Aryans". Persians =/= Arabs. And you'd better not mistake the one for the other in front of any of the two.

they're about as white as Indians. moreover there is no Iranian that looks like a European

Indians have a strong Indo-Iranic prevalence, and the most spoken languages in South Asia are Indo-european, not Hamito-semitic.

http://i45.tinypic.com/28lwdqx.jpg

http://www.genetics.org/content/genetic ... carousel=1

Genetically, Iranians are closest to Greeks (guess why?)

Risottia wrote:Genetically, Iranians are closest to Greeks (guess why?)

Well, if you believe the greek myth, one of their heroes pretty much populated the land that is called Persia (aka iranians).
but it's mostly because the Europeans migrated from India to Persia, and then to Europe.

Risottia wrote:

Trumptonium wrote:they are semitic from proto-europeans.

Nope. They're the actual "Aryans". Persians =/= Arabs. And you'd better not mistake the one for the other in front of any of the other

Too late. He already did.

Thermodolia wrote:

Saiwania wrote:
You're a full White if your Jewish half is Ashkenazi.

They could be Mizrahi

25% Mizrahi, around 10% Ashkenazi and just over 15% Sephardic

Kennlind wrote:25% Mizrahi, around 10% Ashkenazi and just over 15% Sephardic

This is enough information for me to determine that you're only half White. The Jewish half you have is more non-White than it is White. If you were 25% or more Ashkenazi, I think that'd be enough to push you over to full White status.

Saiwania wrote:

Kennlind wrote:25% Mizrahi, around 10% Ashkenazi and just over 15% Sephardic

This is enough information for me to determine that you're only half White. The Jewish half you have is more non-White than it is White. If you were 25% or more Ashkenazi, I think that'd be enough to push you over to full White status.

Yeah I know I'm mixed race lol
I look very white tho cause the other half is Scottish/Irish and Norwegian and my area doesnt get much sun so ppl are surprised

Thermodolia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:I'm white. Or red if I spend too much time in the sun.

I always knew that you where a lobster!!!

A rock lobster.

Emeseses wrote:I'm an Indonesian-Malay. So, I vote "Asian (Far East)". You should add "Asian (Southeast)".

Pacific Islander

Risottia wrote:
Genetically, Iranians are closest to Greeks (guess why?)

because Greeks (and Romans) are all Asians

Cetacea wrote:

Risottia wrote:
Genetically, Iranians are closest to Greeks (guess why?)

because Greeks (and Romans) are all Asians

I'm kinda hoping this is ironic tbh. nobody can be that out-of-touch with reality.

As a turk,I dont know whether I should vote mixed partially white or either of the two asians.
Turks came from central asia and mixed a lot with the people wherever they went.
The turks in turkey are mostly mixed with armenians and greeks.
Meh just gonna vote mixed lel

Cetacea wrote:

Emeseses wrote:I'm an Indonesian-Malay. So, I vote "Asian (Far East)". You should add "Asian (Southeast)".

Pacific Islander

Yeah but not really though. Traditional definition of Pacific Islander goes only as far west as Papua. We're both probably Austronesians, though, so maybe that might be a better category, but even that category would exclude most of mainland Southeast Asia (with the exception of Malaysia, of course). Racial classification is weird.

Pasong Tirad wrote:

Cetacea wrote:
Pacific Islander

Yeah but not really though. Traditional definition of Pacific Islander goes only as far west as Papua. We're both probably Austronesians, though, so maybe that might be a better category, but even that category would exclude most of mainland Southeast Asia (with the exception of Malaysia, of course). Racial classification is weird.

Native Southeast Asians (Malay, Thai, Pinoy, Javanese, Vietnamese, etc) have similar genetics with Mongoloid race (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc). My history teacher said "proto-Malays came from Dongson, Vietnam and Yunan, China. Meanwhile Eastern Indonesians (such as Papuan, etc) came from Australia." So, they look like Australian Aborigines and Africans. Mixed marriages, wars, trades, religion missions, and migrations from various empires and nations bring foreign influence in Indonesia and South East Asia. We, native Southeast Asians, also expand our influence to the world as what Srivijaya Empire and Majapahit Empire did.

I'm pretty white, I've got fair eyes (call them fair because they seem to shift between blue, green, and grey depending on my surroundings)

Polish as far back as I know, and I was born in Poland. Perhaps if you go back far enough, I could end up having a little German or Czech ancestry, due to my family being from Silesia/Greater Poland/Lesser Poland. I'd like to do a DNA test at some point but I'm not sure how accurate those can be.

Merni wrote:I suppose I fit into the "Middle Eastern" because I'm Indian...

Asian ("Indian subcontinent") really needs to be added to the poll. South Asians are genetically quite different from both West Asians and East Asians.

Not at all surprised by the results so far.

I am racially Asian, vietnamese, but i live in Italy since i was 2 months old (i got adopted) and my main culture is western, specifically is northern italian.
So i think that i fit into the “Far East Asian” option of the pool.

I call racial discrimination. No mention of Argonians. I feel repressed.

Emeseses wrote:

Pasong Tirad wrote:Yeah but not really though. Traditional definition of Pacific Islander goes only as far west as Papua. We're both probably Austronesians, though, so maybe that might be a better category, but even that category would exclude most of mainland Southeast Asia (with the exception of Malaysia, of course). Racial classification is weird.

Native Southeast Asians (Malay, Thai, Pinoy, Javanese, Vietnamese, etc) have similar genetics with Mongoloid race (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc). My history teacher said "proto-Malays came from Dongson, Vietnam and Yunan, China. Meanwhile Eastern Indonesians (such as Papuan, etc) came from Australia." So, they look like Australian Aborigines and Africans. Mixed marriages, wars, trades, religion missions, and migrations from various empires and nations bring foreign influence in Indonesia and South East Asia. We, native Southeast Asians, also expand our influence to the world as what Srivijaya Empire and Majapahit Empire did.

There is a distinct genetic divide between northeastern and southeastern Asian groups however (the terms Northern Mongoloid and Southern Mongoloid are outdated btw) and an indication that the Northern populations derive from a Southern origin point. You're generally right about the Yunnan hypothesis although which originates SE Asian populations there but the distinctions of Austroasiatic being indigenous while Tai and Austronesian are later migrations might be debated if credence is given to Sundaland - the sunken continent that was the true origin point from which the SE Asian and Papua/Aboriginal/Orang Asli populations migrated.

Papuans probably don't originate in Australia, rather they are an earlier Asian population who migrated to Australia millennia before the other Asian groups existed, but are nonetheless as distinct from modern African populations as any other Asian group.

Now Pacific Islander is a loaded term of course and its boundaries are ambiguous. There was a time before politics split the islands that the Oceanic populations of the Pacific Islands were also referred to as part of the 'Malay Race' since they share the same genetics and speak variants of the same Austronesian language group and there is still some who, for instance, argue that the Alifuru of Maluku are Pacific Islanders despite being part of Indonesia (which then raises the question about other parts of Indonesia) and then of course you get the whole issue with Phillipines-Micronesia connection.

Suffice to say though that Pacific Islanders have the same genetic profile as South East Asians

Cetacea wrote:

Emeseses wrote:Native Southeast Asians (Malay, Thai, Pinoy, Javanese, Vietnamese, etc) have similar genetics with Mongoloid race (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc). My history teacher said "proto-Malays came from Dongson, Vietnam and Yunan, China. Meanwhile Eastern Indonesians (such as Papuan, etc) came from Australia." So, they look like Australian Aborigines and Africans. Mixed marriages, wars, trades, religion missions, and migrations from various empires and nations bring foreign influence in Indonesia and South East Asia. We, native Southeast Asians, also expand our influence to the world as what Srivijaya Empire and Majapahit Empire did.

There is a distinct genetic divide between northeastern and southeastern Asian groups however (the terms Northern Mongoloid and Southern Mongoloid are outdated btw) and an indication that the Northern populations derive from a Southern origin point. You're generally right about the Yunnan hypothesis although which originates SE Asian populations there but the distinctions of Austroasiatic being indigenous while Tai and Austronesian are later migrations might be debated if credence is given to Sundaland - the sunken continent that was the true origin point from which the SE Asian and Papua/Aboriginal/Orang Asli populations migrated.

Papuans probably don't originate in Australia, rather they are an earlier Asian population who migrated to Australia millennia before the other Asian groups existed, but are nonetheless as distinct from modern African populations as any other Asian group.

Now Pacific Islander is a loaded term of course and its boundaries are ambiguous. There was a time before politics split the islands that the Oceanic populations of the Pacific Islands were also referred to as part of the 'Malay Race' since they share the same genetics and speak variants of the same Austronesian language group and there is still some who, for instance, argue that the Alifuru of Maluku are Pacific Islanders despite being part of Indonesia (which then raises the question about other parts of Indonesia) and then of course you get the whole issue with Phillipines-Micronesia connection.

Suffice to say though that Pacific Islanders have the same genetic profile as South East Asians

I'm not really sure where my ancestors came from. In wikipedia, it's said that ancestors of native Indonesians were Homo Erectus from Asia (mostly from Taiwan?). It makes me more confused. But, you may be right that Australian Aborigines came from Southeast Asia. That's still debatable. In fact, all races and ethicities are mixed. Nothing is pure. We, human beings interact each other, so we create new culture more and more. Playing Nationstates is our culture now. LOL.

Emeseses wrote:

Cetacea wrote:
There is a distinct genetic divide between northeastern and southeastern Asian groups however (the terms Northern Mongoloid and Southern Mongoloid are outdated btw) and an indication that the Northern populations derive from a Southern origin point. You're generally right about the Yunnan hypothesis although which originates SE Asian populations there but the distinctions of Austroasiatic being indigenous while Tai and Austronesian are later migrations might be debated if credence is given to Sundaland - the sunken continent that was the true origin point from which the SE Asian and Papua/Aboriginal/Orang Asli populations migrated.

Papuans probably don't originate in Australia, rather they are an earlier Asian population who migrated to Australia millennia before the other Asian groups existed, but are nonetheless as distinct from modern African populations as any other Asian group.

Now Pacific Islander is a loaded term of course and its boundaries are ambiguous. There was a time before politics split the islands that the Oceanic populations of the Pacific Islands were also referred to as part of the 'Malay Race' since they share the same genetics and speak variants of the same Austronesian language group and there is still some who, for instance, argue that the Alifuru of Maluku are Pacific Islanders despite being part of Indonesia (which then raises the question about other parts of Indonesia) and then of course you get the whole issue with Phillipines-Micronesia connection.

Suffice to say though that Pacific Islanders have the same genetic profile as South East Asians

I'm not really sure where my ancestors came from. In wikipedia, it's said that ancestors of native Indonesians were Homo Erectus from Asia (mostly from Taiwan?). It makes me more confused. But, you may be right that Australian Aborigines came from Southeast Asia. That's still debatable. In fact, all races and ethicities are mixed. Nothing is pure. We, human beings interact each other, so we create new culture more and more. Playing Nationstates is our culture now. LOL.

You’re technically correct in that the ancestors of Papuans and Australian aborigines migrated through Southeast Asia, but the general consensus is that they come from a separate eastward migration from the ancestors of modern-day Southeast Asians, who are the primary source population for Northeast Asians.

In any case I use “East Asian” to refer everywhere in Asia east of the Indian subcontinent (excluding the darker skinned, curly haired peoples inhabiting some parts of SE Asia), “South Asian” to refer to the native peoples of the Indian subcontinent, and “Caucasian/West Asian” to refer to the native peoples of the Eastern Mediterranean, Arabian Peninsula, the Caucasus, and parts of Central Asia.

The tricky part about “race” isn’t that meaningful biological differences don’t exist among different human populations, it’s that human genetic variation doesn’t occur in shades of black-and-white. For example people have argued that Jews aren’t “white” because they’re from the Middle East, but not only do they have a certain degree of European ancestry from Roman times, “Middle Easterners” aren’t even that genetically different from Europeans. (In fact, much of the ancestry of Europeans has been traced to ancient farmers from the Middle East.) The fact that West Asians and North Africans are considered “non-white” despite being relatively light skinned and genetically similar to Europeans has more to do with them being Muslim/not Christian.