stupidumboy
Junior Member
canadian_kor said:
well said.
Modern Korean paternal genes linked to Han Chinese
- Thread starter uygurlar
- Start date
well said.
J
Jopok
Guest
"Yeah, really intelligent for you to come on to Japanese forums and start throwing out your anti-Japanese sentiments. Don't you have better things to do? If you want to paste anti-Japanese stuff on the web, go get your own discussion forum. This forum is for people who want to learn more about Japan and have friendly discussions with people who know about the Japanese culture." - Canadian_Kor
You're the one who have nothing better to do but to kiss Japanese's ass. Take away that prefix [Canadian] and see how many Japs are willing to be close friends of a Korean!? You're ashamed to be Korean. You think being Korean is not good enough so you call yourself Canadian_Kor!
I am pround to be Corean!
You're the one who have nothing better to do but to kiss Japanese's ass. Take away that prefix [Canadian] and see how many Japs are willing to be close friends of a Korean!? You're ashamed to be Korean. You think being Korean is not good enough so you call yourself Canadian_Kor!
I am pround to be Corean!
canadian_kor
Thrill Seeker
Jopok said:
First of all, I am proud to be both Canadian and Korean. You know, you can be proud of both.
Secondly, I'm not kissing anyone's ass. Also, I'm sure many Japanese people here would could care less if I added or deleted the prefix "canadian." You don't know these people, and many of them have been respectful towards me so far.
Thirdly, if you're so superior to Japanese why do you use the derogatory term "Jap"? You're just lowering yourself by using that term. Just like a Japanese person would lower himself if he used the word "Gook" or "Chosonjin."
I'm ashamed that I belong to an ethnic group that has people like you in it. Perhaps you should change your attitude and maybe we can constructively deal with the issues you have concerns about.
lexico
Chukchi Salmon
The small sample size is enough to raise serious doubts about the reliability of the study; most genetic group studies conducted these days suffer from the same problem. Furthermore, the sampling method employed is not even defined. The Mitochodrial Eve theory that supposedly support the Out-of-Africa theory of human origin also suffer from a similar problem. Often times academic studies are hampered by such fundamental flaws lending numerous theoretical and factual errors to creep in. Academic publishing has become more an issue of competition for suvival pushing otherwise good intuitions to deteriorate into sensational hypothesising that stops at just that. The temptation to manipulate data by "weeding out" unfavourable "stray occurences" to force statistics with superficial appeal are sometimes detected, but not always. The extent to which dishonest science has become fashionable is a problem that needs to be addressed before getting too serious about any particular study result. I would say any sample below 2,000, any sampling that does not strictly follow a well defined statistical method be kept at bay by calling them hypotheses. What is more, the straight reading of historical records was obviously not observed by Uygular; some of those were corrected by hard-working posters, but it would be better to have had the first post better prepared, and not strewn with so many errors and bold, low-quality hypothsising. It is about time that we stopped relying on cheap science and cheap history telling.Study of Korean Male Origins linked by Uygular said:
This is not surprising; what did they expect ?
EdZiomek
Regular Member
Lexico... thank you for your comments. I had not seen this particular thread till right now. Sadly, I may be the king of "cheap history telling" and "cheap science", though I don't mean to be. Having said that, let me contribute an opinion that the blood-typing graphic of "Stupidumboy" dated June 25, 2004, is fascinating, and I have never seen an example of this until now. However, I don't understand his one quote... "The originated place seems like baikal lake or mongolia." That puzzles me, somewhat.
Unquestionalby, this graphic is very valuable. Thank you very much for bringing this up top.
Unquestionalby, this graphic is very valuable. Thank you very much for bringing this up top.
lexico
Chukchi Salmon
Another interesting genetic analysis of 293 human samples is an example of a worse case in scientific hypothesising that stopped at hypothesis only. It really does not matter whether they got it right eventually; it does matter how they got to their conclusion; being in the sciences, that is the rule of the game.
1) a historical (or archeological/paleontological/anthropological) context on a grander scale than is easily accessible
2) a good number of systematic matches or parallels that can withstand the criticism that they are random, stray matches. (See this post on Random Matches in Japanese.)
I have no problem with ideas presented in an honest, straightforward fashion as your have been doing, but I find it problematic when ideas are presented as FACTS with a so-called SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT when all the scientists were doing was pursuing a hypothesis. Between hypothesis, a well-studied theory, and a well-established, well-accepted theory after strictly examined peer reviews lies galaxies of a distance. Whenever I detect such a huge gap between fact and experimental working hypothesis dressed up as SCIENTIFIC FACT supporting wild, debased claims such as Uygular's, I never miss my chance to point them out. It is therefore the misrepresentation of his ideas as SCIENTIFICALLY SUPPORTED FACTS that I find problems with, not his ideas themselves. Well, some of his ideas betray some strong-headed opinions that sound way to irrational to me.
I do find the Japanese fascination with lake Baikal area as "their place of origin" a bit understudied, yet the period under question is late-paelolithic to early neolithic -- microlithic to be more precise -- and that being before the true neolithic period, it is also expected that huge human population groups are not to be found. Any innovation either genetic, cultural (tool making and subsistence), or linguistic, would be hard to detect as the number and range of the initial innovators would have been small. When they finally became wide-spread (many studies either assume this because if the influence was not wide-spread, we would have a hard time finding much trace of anything. Yes, mildly circular logic, but this is unavoidable for now imo.) AND we have evidence on any particular trend, it is way far down into the late neolithic / historical period to make a detailed, step-by-step reconstruction of the historical process that occurred -- a very difficult task indeed.
If there was any merit to Uygular's thesis, it was to point out the fact that many Japnaese and Korean sources blindedly followed the "Out-of-Lake Baikal/Mongol Hypothesis of Japanese/Korean Origin" which has become rather popular during the 1970's in the so-called Egami's "Horserider Theory of Japanese Origin."
A discussion, Re: The Origin(s) of the Japanese on JapanToday forum.
Hi, EdZiomek ! Thanks for taking an interest in this thread; I am also aware that you share keen interest in the relationship between human cultures, and I admire your passion for pursuing your thesis. Although I have not much to offer either in active support or in constructive criticism regarding your particular points mostly for my lack of supportive evidence, I do not think they are simply fantastic ideas that will prove untrue. To the contrary, I honestly believe quite a bit of what you have been putting forward for examination will become topics of valid, genuine academic topics up for debate if, and when studies are possible -- mostly the problem lies in findingEdZiomek said:
1) a historical (or archeological/paleontological/anthropological) context on a grander scale than is easily accessible
2) a good number of systematic matches or parallels that can withstand the criticism that they are random, stray matches. (See this post on Random Matches in Japanese.)
I have no problem with ideas presented in an honest, straightforward fashion as your have been doing, but I find it problematic when ideas are presented as FACTS with a so-called SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT when all the scientists were doing was pursuing a hypothesis. Between hypothesis, a well-studied theory, and a well-established, well-accepted theory after strictly examined peer reviews lies galaxies of a distance. Whenever I detect such a huge gap between fact and experimental working hypothesis dressed up as SCIENTIFIC FACT supporting wild, debased claims such as Uygular's, I never miss my chance to point them out. It is therefore the misrepresentation of his ideas as SCIENTIFICALLY SUPPORTED FACTS that I find problems with, not his ideas themselves. Well, some of his ideas betray some strong-headed opinions that sound way to irrational to me.
Wikipedia on psychosisUygular said:
Yes, I also found the blood-type composition distribution map quite interesting although it is unclear to me how that distribution can be evidence for anything more than individual closeness between neighboring genetic group. Extracting support from the distribution information for fantastic theories are expected to fail unless properly qualified. Although I have not seen the original study the map was meant for, there seem to be a number of good standing archeological/anhtropological/paleobotanical studies about the ancient climate, flora, and fauna in the lake Baikal region.EdZiomek said:
I do find the Japanese fascination with lake Baikal area as "their place of origin" a bit understudied, yet the period under question is late-paelolithic to early neolithic -- microlithic to be more precise -- and that being before the true neolithic period, it is also expected that huge human population groups are not to be found. Any innovation either genetic, cultural (tool making and subsistence), or linguistic, would be hard to detect as the number and range of the initial innovators would have been small. When they finally became wide-spread (many studies either assume this because if the influence was not wide-spread, we would have a hard time finding much trace of anything. Yes, mildly circular logic, but this is unavoidable for now imo.) AND we have evidence on any particular trend, it is way far down into the late neolithic / historical period to make a detailed, step-by-step reconstruction of the historical process that occurred -- a very difficult task indeed.
If there was any merit to Uygular's thesis, it was to point out the fact that many Japnaese and Korean sources blindedly followed the "Out-of-Lake Baikal/Mongol Hypothesis of Japanese/Korean Origin" which has become rather popular during the 1970's in the so-called Egami's "Horserider Theory of Japanese Origin."
A discussion, Re: The Origin(s) of the Japanese on JapanToday forum.
Last edited:
lexico
Chukchi Salmon
The Fallacy of Sinophobia I
I believe there is a major misconception that has been pushing certain Japanese and Korean scholars to find non-Chinese origin for them to feel safe, but the source of their fear was a phatom, a propagandist claim within their neo-Confucian factions that used sinocentrist rhetoric of their times to gain unfair advantage over liberalist ideas. Here is one interesting post from a forum called ktown213 that makes a general statement free of such a fear of the Chinese phantom - one need not fight a Chinese enemy that does not exist. The great diversity of the origin and evolution of Chinese civilisation that has been gaining steady momentum should rid the need for pursuing a non-Chinese origin for there is no such thing as a single Chinese origin.
So where did Koreans originate from ?
Although the "10,000 years of Chinese History Project" might seem threatening to outsiders, the positive intention of self-recognition by the Chinese peoples is not to be misunderstood. As research will make increasingly clear, there were many peoples, languages, cultures, and innovations in east and south east Asia that merged into forming what we loosely understand as Chinese civilisation. A civilisation is something to be shared - not out of principle, but out of good, objective, scientific reasons. There is no cause for alarm for the History Project, for it was the converging activities of many peoples of the late neolithic period that gave rise to several major cultural trends that contributed to what we perceive as Chinese.
One point worth noting; close to one half the period of all Chinese history was dominated by non-Han Chinese language speaking peoples of mid-to mid-North Asia -- often called Altaic (not always so, for some argue the Xiongnu had spoken a non-Altaic language called Yenissei-Ostyak). These northern cultural, linguistic, gentic elements are a major part of Chinese civilisation that often go unnoticed. For example, the Xiongnu Empire ruled over the two Han dynasties(202 BCE-220 CE), only to be subjugated by the Xianbei (?N??, Xiānbēi / Hsien-pei) peoples who ruled norther Asia in the Eastern Han-to Northern Wei dynasties of the Southern and Northern Dynasties Period (??k?? Nanbei chao, 420-589) in Chinese historiography.
According to one statistics, the 10,000 walled settlements of the neolithic-to early bronze era within Chinese borders of today merged into ca. 1,000 by the time of Shang, ca. 100 by the time of Zhou, 6 warring states by late Zhou Warring States period before Qin dynasty finally unfied most of Norther Chinese above the Yangzi River in 211 BCE. There is evidence that at least a number of those human settlements were distinct from what we might classify as Chinese as we would normally classify today.
I believe there is a major misconception that has been pushing certain Japanese and Korean scholars to find non-Chinese origin for them to feel safe, but the source of their fear was a phatom, a propagandist claim within their neo-Confucian factions that used sinocentrist rhetoric of their times to gain unfair advantage over liberalist ideas. Here is one interesting post from a forum called ktown213 that makes a general statement free of such a fear of the Chinese phantom - one need not fight a Chinese enemy that does not exist. The great diversity of the origin and evolution of Chinese civilisation that has been gaining steady momentum should rid the need for pursuing a non-Chinese origin for there is no such thing as a single Chinese origin.
So where did Koreans originate from ?
New light thrown on origins of Chinese culture as lost civilization emerges
Although the "10,000 years of Chinese History Project" might seem threatening to outsiders, the positive intention of self-recognition by the Chinese peoples is not to be misunderstood. As research will make increasingly clear, there were many peoples, languages, cultures, and innovations in east and south east Asia that merged into forming what we loosely understand as Chinese civilisation. A civilisation is something to be shared - not out of principle, but out of good, objective, scientific reasons. There is no cause for alarm for the History Project, for it was the converging activities of many peoples of the late neolithic period that gave rise to several major cultural trends that contributed to what we perceive as Chinese.
One point worth noting; close to one half the period of all Chinese history was dominated by non-Han Chinese language speaking peoples of mid-to mid-North Asia -- often called Altaic (not always so, for some argue the Xiongnu had spoken a non-Altaic language called Yenissei-Ostyak). These northern cultural, linguistic, gentic elements are a major part of Chinese civilisation that often go unnoticed. For example, the Xiongnu Empire ruled over the two Han dynasties(202 BCE-220 CE), only to be subjugated by the Xianbei (?N??, Xiānbēi / Hsien-pei) peoples who ruled norther Asia in the Eastern Han-to Northern Wei dynasties of the Southern and Northern Dynasties Period (??k?? Nanbei chao, 420-589) in Chinese historiography.
According to one statistics, the 10,000 walled settlements of the neolithic-to early bronze era within Chinese borders of today merged into ca. 1,000 by the time of Shang, ca. 100 by the time of Zhou, 6 warring states by late Zhou Warring States period before Qin dynasty finally unfied most of Norther Chinese above the Yangzi River in 211 BCE. There is evidence that at least a number of those human settlements were distinct from what we might classify as Chinese as we would normally classify today.
Last edited: