0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
quote:Originally posted by qazibasityou will be amazed to know that one can identify the race of a person upto 99.99% just by their external appearance.
quote:Originally posted by another_someonequote:Originally posted by qazibasityou will be amazed to know that one can identify the race of a person upto 99.99% just by their external appearance.This might be true where there is a clear delineation between races, and it becomes easy to pigeon hole a person as one race or another; but this can only be true for relatively inbred populations (e.g. those who are geographically or religiously isolated from their nearest neighbours, and who do not marry out of their own group).In the European/American context, there is a wide range of races that freely intermarry (it does does not mean that intramarriage is not still far more common than intermarriage, but there is sufficient intermarriage that the racial boundaries are quickly blurred). It may well be that in some parts of the world there is greater resistance to intermarriage, and greater isolation of racial groups.Ofcourse, it also depends upon how you define your racial group. Clearly, while there are Chinese communities in Europe and America, and there is intermarriage between this group and the wider community; most Chinese live in China, and have very little contact with Europeans or Americans, either within their own country or outside of it. Clearly, there is some shared blood between Chinese and Europeans (particularly as a consequence of the Mongol invasions of the 13 century that would have effected both communities, as well as Turkish groups that have influenced both groups), but the amount of contemporary interbreeding on a global scale between Chinese and Europeans is still very slight.But, the discussion we were having earlier about early European races, such as the Finns or European Jews, have a long and thoroughly integrated history within Europe, and their racial boundaries have become extensively blurred.George
quote:Originally posted by TitanscapeTo look at Szecklers, ie, Hungarian Transylvanians, they look European, but are said to be descended from the mixing of Huns with Ugrians.
quote:Originally posted by TitanscapeI thought the Turks were a tribe of Celts that went east. Huns were observed by the Romans and had Mongol eyes.Turks are European looking, there a a fair few here in Australia.Although in the east there are Tartars, who look Chinese.
quote:The Xiongnu (Chinese: #21256;#22900;; Pinyin: Xi#333;ngnú; Wade-Giles: Hsiung-nu); were a nomadic (and probably Hunnic/proto-Turkic) people of Central Asia, generally based in present day Mongolia. From the 3rd century BC they controlled a vast steppe empire extending west as far as the Caucasus. They were active in the areas of southern Siberia, western Manchuria and the modern Chinese provinces of Inner Mongolia, Gansu and Xinjiang. Very ancient (perhaps legendary) historic records say that the Xiongnu descended from a son of the final ruler of China's first dynasty (Xia Dynasty), the remnants of which were believed by the Chinese of the Spring and Autumn Period to be the people of the state of Q#464; (#26462;). However, due to internal differences and strife, the Xiongnu fled north and north-west.Relations between the Chinese and the Xiongnu were complicated and included military conflict, exchanges in tribute and trade, as well as marriage treaties.The overwhelming amount of information on the Xiongnu comes from Chinese sources. There is no way of reconstructing any substantial part of the Xiongnu language. What little we know of their titles and names come from Chinese transliterations.
quote:The Xiongnu have often been identified with the Huns, who populated the frontiers of Europe, starting with the writings of the French historian de Guignes in the eighteenth century. This theory remains at the level of speculation, although it is accepted by a large number of scholars including Chinese ones. DNA testing of Hun remains has not proven conclusive in determining the origin of the Huns.Linguistically, it is important to understand that "xi#333;ngnú" is only the modern standard Mandarin pronunciation (based on the Beijing dialect) of "#21256;#22900;". At the time of Hunnish contact with the world (the 4th–6th centuries AD), the character "#21256;" was pronounced /ho#331;/.The first character therefore has a clear similarity with the name "Hun" in European languages. Whether this is evidence of kinship or mere coincidence is hard to tell. It could lend credence to the theory that the Huns were in fact descendants of the Western Xiongnu who migrated westward, or that the Huns were using a name borrowed from the Western Xiongnu, or that these Xiongnu made up part of the Hun confederation.In modern Chinese, the character "#21256;" is used in four ways: 1) to mean "chest" (also written #33016; in this sense); 2) in the name #21256;#29273;#21033; Xi#333;ngyálì "Hungary"; 3) in the name #21256;#20154; Xi#333;ngrén "Hun [person]"; 4) in the name #21256;#22900; Xi#333;ngnú "Xiongnu".The second character, "#22900;", appears to have no parallel in Western terminology. Its contemporary pronunciation was /nh#333;/, and its means "slave", although it is possible that it has only a phonetic role in the name #21256;#22900;. There is almost certainly no connection between the "chest" meaning of #21256; and its ethnic meaning. There might conceivably be some sort of connection with the identically pronounced word "#20982;", which means "fierce", "ferocious", "inauspicious", "bad", or "violent act". Most probably, the word derives from the tribe's own name for itself, and the character was chosen somewhat arbitrarily — a practice that continues today in Chinese renderings of foreign names.