On Jan 22, 3:38 pm, RichAsianKid <richasian...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 22, 2:29 pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I was always suspicious of the label, but now it seems that Asian > > Pacific American" may not be only a "geo-political" term! > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/world/asia/18islands.html?ref=asia > > > EXCERPT > > > The ancestral relationships of people living in the widely scattered > > islands of the Pacific Ocean, long a puzzle to anthropologists, may > > have been solved by a new genetic study, researchers reported > > Thursday. > > > In an analysis of the DNA of 1,000 individuals from 41 Pacific > > populations, an international team of scientists found strong evidence > > showing that Polynesians and Micronesians in the central and eastern > > islands had almost no genetic relationship to Melanesians, in the > > western islands like Papua New Guinea and the Bismarck and Solomons > > archipelagos. > > > The researchers also concluded that the genetic data showed that the > > Polynesians and Micronesians were most closely related to Taiwan > > Aborigines and East Asians. They said this supported the view that > > these migrating seafarers originated in Taiwan and coastal China at > > least 3,500 years ago. > > > ... > > > Further research to confirm the history of the Pacific diaspora, Dr. > > Friedlaender said, would require an expansion of genetic tests among > > people in the Philippines and Indonesia, regions that the migrants > > presumably passed through after leaving Taiwan more than 3,500 years > > ago, ultimately reaching as far as Hawaii and Easter Island. The > > Melanesians, on the other hand, probably arrived on their islands > > about 35,000 years ago, sometime later than the Aborigines reached > > Australia. > > > ... > > > The new genetic research, said Patrick V. Kirch, an anthropologist at > > the University of California, Berkeley, who is an authority on Pacific > > cultures, was "overwhelming biological evidence for a clear population > > movement out of Southeast Asia and Taiwan to Polynesia." > > Great article! > > But I'd still say that APA is still a geo-political term for no other > reason that it includes subcontinent Indians. > > But it's a great article as it illustrates the exciting nature of 21st > century science and genetics - it contradicts the 'blank slate' > ideology - and illustrates how we're weaved into our concentric webs > of ancestry. It'll also be interesting to witness how this play out > and how this will drive a stake through late 20th century liberal- > sanctioned universalist pseudoscience that everyone's the same and > interchangeable. Isn't this the reason for organ transplants, that we are the same and interchangable? We are more the same than different. > But that's a side point. > > As they say, "just cuz you're born in a manger doesn't make you a bale > of hay." The study you quoted illustrates how genealogy is so very > real. It is the neglected vertical aspect of ourselves -- and I might > add that in real life, in spite of practically every institution > militating against it, the vertical aspect in practical and political > matters and seem to consistently trump that horizontal aspect of > geographical proximity. > > As example, blacks and whites have been in living together for a long > time. Whatever you think of the sins of white ancestors or the crimes > of black descendants, identity politics continue to surface. This > point is understandable, even expected, if you look at the > phylogenetic ancestral tree - whites and blacks are not the same > people, they're far far apart. Yet it is much less understandable if > you just look at it like a starry-eyed utopian: geography should > explain everything, look, they live together, now why is it that they > don't get along? > > Last, that's why people when they're old crawl back to their roots > rather than crawl back to their neighbors (I think). Not all, but > many. Many people "rediscover" their heritage; and they continue to > love their own children and grandchildren and worship their ancestors > way more than they love children and grandchildren of strangers or > whorship ancestors of their neighbors - especially if they look > different, especially if they speak a different language. That is, > even after a lifetime of close, proximal social bonding, geographical > neighbors are still often not seen as their own. No, they're not > instinctually, not viscerally, one of theirs. In fact in such > situations, rife and resource competition etc etc is more the norm. > > And yes that's all sidetrack. Have to make one last last comment: you > X-posted this to soc.culture.china. Well. I have to say that I'm now > not as amazed to see how many overseas (former) Chinese see China in > such romantic light from a distance now matter how crappy the country > is. Blood is thicker than water. > > Cheers, > RichAsianKid- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
On Jan 22, 7:06 pm, rst0wxyz <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 22, 3:38 pm, RichAsianKid <richasian...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2:29 pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > I was always suspicious of the label, but now it seems that Asian > > > Pacific American" may not be only a "geo-political" term! > > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/world/asia/18islands.html?ref=asia > > > > EXCERPT > > > > The ancestral relationships of people living in the widely scattered > > > islands of the Pacific Ocean, long a puzzle to anthropologists, may > > > have been solved by a new genetic study, researchers reported > > > Thursday. > > > > In an analysis of the DNA of 1,000 individuals from 41 Pacific > > > populations, an international team of scientists found strong evidence > > > showing that Polynesians and Micronesians in the central and eastern > > > islands had almost no genetic relationship to Melanesians, in the > > > western islands like Papua New Guinea and the Bismarck and Solomons > > > archipelagos. > > > > The researchers also concluded that the genetic data showed that the > > > Polynesians and Micronesians were most closely related to Taiwan > > > Aborigines and East Asians. They said this supported the view that > > > these migrating seafarers originated in Taiwan and coastal China at > > > least 3,500 years ago. > > > > ... > > > > Further research to confirm the history of the Pacific diaspora, Dr. > > > Friedlaender said, would require an expansion of genetic tests among > > > people in the Philippines and Indonesia, regions that the migrants > > > presumably passed through after leaving Taiwan more than 3,500 years > > > ago, ultimately reaching as far as Hawaii and Easter Island. The > > > Melanesians, on the other hand, probably arrived on their islands > > > about 35,000 years ago, sometime later than the Aborigines reached > > > Australia. > > > > ... > > > > The new genetic research, said Patrick V. Kirch, an anthropologist at > > > the University of California, Berkeley, who is an authority on Pacific > > > cultures, was "overwhelming biological evidence for a clear population > > > movement out of Southeast Asia and Taiwan to Polynesia." > > > Great article! > > > But I'd still say that APA is still a geo-political term for no other > > reason that it includes subcontinent Indians. > > > But it's a great article as it illustrates the exciting nature of 21st > > century science and genetics - it contradicts the 'blank slate' > > ideology - and illustrates how we're weaved into our concentric webs > > of ancestry. It'll also be interesting to witness how this play out > > and how this will drive a stake through late 20th century liberal- > > sanctioned universalist pseudoscience that everyone's the same and > > interchangeable. > > Isn't this the reason for organ transplants, that we are the same and > interchangable? We are more the same than different. > We are mammals first and foremost, yes. Meaning: we're not that different from our animal cousins: territory, hierarchy, kinship. But really, if we're all so universally interchangeable, which then is it so important for screening? Why then is it so important to have a biological & compatible HLA match? > > But that's a side point. > > > As they say, "just cuz you're born in a manger doesn't make you a bale > > of hay." The study you quoted illustrates how genealogy is so very > > real. It is the neglected vertical aspect of ourselves -- and I might > > add that in real life, in spite of practically every institution > > militating against it, the vertical aspect in practical and political > > matters and seem to consistently trump that horizontal aspect of > > geographical proximity. > > > As example, blacks and whites have been in living together for a long > > time. Whatever you think of the sins of white ancestors or the crimes > > of black descendants, identity politics continue to surface. This > > point is understandable, even expected, if you look at the > > phylogenetic ancestral tree - whites and blacks are not the same > > people, they're far far apart. Yet it is much less understandable if > > you just look at it like a starry-eyed utopian: geography should > > explain everything, look, they live together, now why is it that they > > don't get along? > > > Last, that's why people when they're old crawl back to their roots > > rather than crawl back to their neighbors (I think). Not all, but > > many. Many people "rediscover" their heritage; and they continue to > > love their own children and grandchildren and worship their ancestors > > way more than they love children and grandchildren of strangers or > > whorship ancestors of their neighbors - especially if they look > > different, especially if they speak a different language. That is, > > even after a lifetime of close, proximal social bonding, geographical > > neighbors are still often not seen as their own. No, they're not > > instinctually, not viscerally, one of theirs. In fact in such > > situations, rife and resource competition etc etc is more the norm. > > > And yes that's all sidetrack. Have to make one last last comment: you > > X-posted this to soc.culture.china. Well. I have to say that I'm now > > not as amazed to see how many overseas (former) Chinese see China in > > such romantic light from a distance now matter how crappy the country > > is. Blood is thicker than water. > > > Cheers, > > RichAsianKid- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -