On Jan 22, 10:31 pm, rst0wxyz <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 22, 6:02 pm,RichAsianKid<richasian...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 22, 8:55 pm, rst0wxyz <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 22, 5:21 pm,RichAsianKid<richasian...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 22, 7:06 pm, rst0wxyz <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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? > > > > RAT, you are more of a gnat than anything else. Go back to your > > > social statistics. > > > Truth hurts. And I'm sure you' don't needRichAsianKID'sadvice re: > > growing up? ;) > > The truth is, RAT, all your posts are way off-base out to the left > field. Huhhh?? But you never replied meaingfully to the first post either. To quote again and I already replied as follows: > 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. 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 * * * * Just to remind you the following. In China especially but in other parts of the Far East as well, even if you're American if you are phenotypically Asian you're still one of them. You may hate it, you may love it. Either way it exists. That illustrates the vertical aspect of belonging, of ancestry that most people in the world take for granted. Can you imagine if an Mbuti Pygmy is to immigrant to Sweden and after 10 years he's suddenly a blonde Nordic Swede? No sir, that cannot be done. He may become a Swedish citizen, but to imagine that he can just blend in perfect to Swede society requires that much more faith. The mainland Chinese think the same way. Take for instance: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/03/25/1111692629223.html?from=top "How come the United States selects a female chimpanzee as Secretary of State?" "This black woman thinks rather a lot of herself." "She's so ugly she's losing face. Even a dog would be put off its dinner while she's being fed." Bwahahahahaa!!!! And in the context of this thread, it's the heritable vertical aspect of relatedness that's more interesting than the accidental horizontal ones.