From:           	"John Derbyshire
Date sent:      	Fri, 21 Jan 2000 22:52:26 -0800
Subject:        	[h-bd] Re: More on language & race


[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ]


> James C. Bennett reported:
>
> I recall seeing some fairly recent DNA work suggesting that the
> Japanese are quite distinct from Han Chinese, but close to
> Koreans, Mongols, and Manchus.  This would be in accord with the
> linguistic patterns and probable migration routes.....
>


JD:


This was also my understanding.  Anybody got Cavalli-Sforza to hand?


I can distinguish Japanese/Korean from Chinese by sight with about 70%
accuracy.  Chinese people can do better than that.  I have no information
from Japanese.  Perhaps Steve Tripp can fill the gap.


On the other hand, the Manchurians-- part of the same general Siberian
stock as the Japs/Koreans & with a Tungusic (non-Sinitic) language-- are
indistinguishable from Chinese by sight.  I lived a year in Manchuria and
occasionally found myself talking to someone who declared himself a
Manchu-- I never would have known. (Though surnames sometimes give a
hint-- "Tang", in spite of being the name of a medieval Chinese dynasty,
is very often the surname of a Manchu.)  The Manchus collaborated
disgracefully with the Japanese when the latter occupied Manchuria and
turned it into the puppet kindgom of Manchuguo (1931-45), calling the last
emperor of the Manchu dynasty out of retirement to act as a figurehead. 
After the Chinese reclaimed the territory the Manchus felt a little
discretion was in order, and melted into the general population with great
success.  On the other other hand, the Manchus had ruled China for 300
yrs, so presumably there had been a lot of miscegenation-- much more, at
any rate, than between Japs/Koreans and Chinese.


John Derbyshire
Huntington, NY 11743-7104


Date sent:      	Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:27:50 -0500
From:           	"James C. Bennett" 
To:             	Henry Harpending 
Copies to:      	John Derbyshire 
Subject:        	[h-bd] Re: More on language & race


[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ]


I recall seeing some fairly recent DNA work suggesting that the Japanese
are quite distinct from Han Chinese, but close to Koreans, Mongols, and
Manchus.  This would be in accord with the linguistic patterns and
probable migration routes.


I'm sure most Japanese would rather be related to the Chinese than the
Koreans, if they had to be related to anyone, but the facts seem to
indicate otherwise.


Henry Harpending wrote:


> > The Japanese are
> > at the other pole, their language weighed down with loan-words ... but
> > this proves nothing on the h-bd front, as the Japanese and Chinese are
> > genetically (and linguistically) quite distinct.
> >
> > John Derbyshire
>
> The genetic difference is mostly Japanese ideology--they are genetically
> no more different than Brits and Frenchmen.  The two languages, on the
> other hand, are as different as any two languages you can find.
>
> Henry Harpending