NationStates Jolt Archive

I've always had one question for the past three months and I asked anyone who I thought knew the differences but I made little progress. I even Google'd it but found nothing.

What are the physical differences between Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Cambodians, Filipino's, Malaysians, Indonesians, Singaporians, Vietnamese, Laosians, Thai's, Burmese, Mongolians and (if possible) Tibetans?

I know it is too much to ask for, but whatever knowledge you have on these races' physical differences, please state it.

Thank you!

Bump.

Differences aren't between "races" and "ethnicities": they are between humans.
The system of classification was invented by an Imperial Western world, and it is obtuse and illogical. Two things about really puzzle me: wht did the "Caucasian race" give itself the privilege of being so diverse (even, the most diverse - we're still Ubermensch, apparently!)? Why do we still go by this crap when we've discarded all other things in XIXth century pseudo-sciences (Social Darwinism - can't we see that it invented all its arguments to serve a purpose that we should not encourage?)?

Wow. That's a lot of different cultures. Physical differences aren't that obvious. It'll be something about someone's face or eyes. I am half Filipino and I can always tell another Filipino, but I couldn't tell you Chinese, Japanese, or Korean most of the time. Why does it matter?

I couldn't tell you exactly what it is, either. It's kind of an instinct.

I've always had one question for the past three months and I asked anyone who I thought knew the differences but I made little progress. I even Google'd it but found nothing.

What are the physical differences between Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Cambodians, Filipino's, Malaysians, Indonesians, Singaporians, Vietnamese, Laosians, Thai's, Burmese, Mongolians and (if possible) Tibetans?

I know it is too much to ask for, but whatever knowledge you have on these races' physical differences, please state it.

Thank you!
Well, those aren't races for starters. They're nationalities or cultures at best. It's like asking "what are the physical differences between Germans, Polish, French, and English?". There may be some slight trends or attributes but in general they're not going to be that important.

Maybe the Chinese tend to have a rounder face, and Malayans more coppery skin, but in the end it's not important.

Why do you need to know?

There aren't many physical differneces,just like there areny many differences between germans and french and spanish and the like.well apart from how tanned they are.

there isn't it's all a conspiracy, they're all one big nation pretending to be diffent...

I would have to say you are slightly wrong about the conspiracy. But it could be a subconcious plot to confuse the Caucasians. I'm sure I would've heard of the conspiracy. Or am I just misguiding you??

When I was in school, it was considered racist NOT to be able to tell the difference between, say, Japanese and Korean students.. give the OP a break and try to answer his question if you can, but if you can't help him, spare the lecture on how "race" doesn't exist, because we all know what he's asking.

Asian friends of mine through high school always knew the difference among themselves, like I said, and they expected me to be able to tell, too.. they considered it rude if you couldn't tell that a new acquaintance was Korean or Thai.. I never got good at it, so I normally would avoid the topic, but the point is that they do know. Same goes for the college I went to, which is 40% Asian, here in California.. there's an assumption that you can tell. The best I can do is place Asian names and surnames with their country of origin, which isn't very impressive. ;)

Well, I tried to help. Sort of. Actually, I was hungover enough to offer some sort of advice. Does that count as help?

When I was in school, it was considered racist NOT to be able to tell the difference between, say, Japanese and Korean students.. give the OP a break and try to answer his question if you can, but if you can't help him, spare the lecture on how "race" doesn't exist, because we all know what he's asking.
Racism=beliving in races. Inherently, that is the truth. That's what it looks like to me, at least (and, yes, I believe I can tell it apart).
Don't agree with me, fine. But you see, I can't answer the OP's question.

Racism is being biased against races. How is believing in races racist?

Racism is being biased against races. How is believing in races racist?
The concept of "race" is intrinsically biased, and illogical (see my first post).

Call me dumb, but I really can't follow your first post. Can you repeat it in simpler terms?

Racism=beliving in races. Inherently, that is the truth. That's what it looks like to me, at least (and, yes, I believe I can tell it apart).
Don't agree with me, fine. But you see, I can't answer the OP's question.

rac·ism

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

You can believe in races without believing that race is a factor in someone's personal character, ability or worth. I noted that Asian friends of mine considered it rude if I couldn't tell between different groups, not because they based supremacist beliefs on those differences, but simply because it looked to them as if I didn't care about their history or culture if I couldn't tell, or, worse, that I considered them all "the same" if I couldn't see any distinction.. prejudice or discrimination had nothing to do with it.. they never claimed to be superior.. that's what racism is, at least in conventional English usage.

When I was in school, it was considered racist NOT to be able to tell the difference between, say, Japanese and Korean students.. give the OP a break and try to answer his question if you can, but if you can't help him, spare the lecture on how "race" doesn't exist, because we all know what he's asking.

Asian friends of mine through high school always knew the difference among themselves, like I said, and they expected me to be able to tell, too.. they considered it rude if you couldn't tell that a new acquaintance was Korean or Thai.. I never got good at it, so I normally would avoid the topic, but the point is that they do know. Same goes for the college I went to, which is 40% Asian, here in California.. there's an assumption that you can tell. The best I can do is place Asian names and surnames with their country of origin, which isn't very impressive. ;)
i dont think it is in any way racist to not be able to tell a korean from a thai. sometimes its easy to tell sometimes it isnt but it depends on your familiarity with both ethnicities. its much harder to tell at a glance if a person is korean or chinese. im quite uncomfortable with my own belief that i can almost always tell which of those groups the OP mentioned a particular individual falls into when ive only just looked at them for a moment.

when my sister moved here to new mexico she was always mistaking navajos for pacific islanders. not an entirely bizarre assumption since she came from the east where there are very few navajos and this is a college town where we get people from all over the world including the pacific rim. but it was funny to have her wonder at all the asians around. id have to keep saying, "cissy, thats an indian"

Call me dumb, but I really can't follow your first post. Can you repeat it in simpler terms?
The issue itself is complicated. I can explain my approach, if you want me two, but I would have to take it step by step. In the process, I would have two deconstruct things that people accept as "natural" and "scientific" - without real proof of it.
In its shortest form, it looks like this: all "scientific" discourse about "races" is created a posteriori - a slave to folklore and traditional misconception, using statements that were produced by bias and bias only.
Example: "Black", no matter its journey inside culture, is ultimately defined with the terms used by the Portuguese and others in the late Middle Ages to define "whomever we are allowed to enslave".

What are the physical differences between Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Cambodians, Filipino's, Malaysians, Indonesians, Singaporians, Vietnamese, Laosians, Thai's, Burmese, Mongolians and (if possible) Tibetans?

The only way to try to guess ethnicity is to become familiar with a greater number of members of differing ethnicities. Even then, it's never a sure thing. I've managed over 35+ years to learn to make educated guesses - or more likely in most cases correct assumptions - based on the relationships I've built with people of various nationalities.

- I'm more likely to correctly guess that a given person is Korean, not Japanese or Chinese.

- I'm less likely to correctly guess that a given person is Filipino rather than Thai.

- I'm more likely to correctly guess that a given person is Vietnamese rather than Laotian.

- I'm less likely to correctly guess that a given person is Hawaiian rather than Japanese.

But more than anything, I'm far more inclined to directly ask a person about their ethnicity, casually in conversation, if I've got a burning sense of curiousity, rather than play guessing-games with myself.

Can I ask why you're curious?

i dont think it is in any way racist to not be able to tell a korean from a thai. sometimes its easy to tell sometimes it isnt but it depends on your familiarity with both ethnicities.

That's true, I should've been more clear on that.. Familiarity does figure into it. It was, in context, rude for me not to take note of the differences, because I was surrounded by an Asian majority most of the time.. it would be considerably less rude for some guy from Maine not to know the difference. :)

rac·ism

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Isnt this thread just about the physical differences?

that's what racism is, at least in conventional English usage.
Please, don't give me that. I wasn't accusing you of being racist - sorry I got misunderstood.
Read my posts again: I'm saying that search for superiority is the main point for believing races exist, intrinsically. Intrinsically, as in: you use it, although you mean well - but the notion itself is defined by ill terms. Ill terms: un-scientific and ill-intentioned (in their origin, not in people's uses of them).

Isnt this thread just about the physical differences?

Yes, exactly. I was trying to show that noting a physical difference between people doesn't necessarily entail supremacist belief..

Please, don't give me that. I wasn't accusing you of being racist - sorry I got misunderstood.
Read my posts again: I'm saying that search for superiority is the maint point for believing races exist, intrinsically. Intrinsically, as in: you use it, although you mean well - but the term itself is defined by ill terms. Ill terms: un-scientific and ill-intentioned (in their origin, not in people's uses of them).

Sure, I'm aware of some of the flaws in our terminology, and how we've retained some odd Victorian-era language that was never really accurate (mongoloid, caucasoid, etc.). But I don't think anyone takes the terminology at its word.. I've never seen a "black" person or a "white" person, of course.. "race" is a generalization. But sometimes generalizations are of interest for whatever social or political end, and not necessarily harmful if they don't infect our thinking so far as to become the basis of our reasoning.

Sure, I'm aware of some of the flaws in our terminology, and how we've retained some odd Victorian-era language that was never really accurate (mongoloid, caucasoid, etc.). But I don't think anyone takes the terminology at its word.. I've never seen a "black" person or a "white" person, of course.. "race" is a generalization. But sometimes generalizations are of interest for whatever social or political end, and not necessarily harmful if they don't infect our thinking so far as to become the basis of our reasoning.
All notion of race is included in my definition. It would take 1000 pages to review the fundamental flaws in "race realities". All conventional knowledge is tributary to that - all.
If you look into whatever category, it appears to be as ill-defined as to be dismisable. Main flaw: it is set by folklore. Now, science (even, well-meaning science) takes them as such and invesigates them, but looking only at what they "contain" - never at the fact that they might not exist as all. So, if you say "population X has these special genes" or whatever, you're already using the "X" that was defined by absurd tradition, and not by logic.

I've always had one question for the past three months and I asked anyone who I thought knew the differences but I made little progress. I even Google'd it but found nothing.

What are the physical differences between Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Cambodians, Filipino's, Malaysians, Indonesians, Singaporians, Vietnamese, Laosians, Thai's, Burmese, Mongolians and (if possible) Tibetans?

I know it is too much to ask for, but whatever knowledge you have on these races' physical differences, please state it.

Thank you!
its impossible to state the differences between all these groups. they dont exist as discrete breeding communities. as with all human populations there is considerable amounts of intermixing of ethnicities.

the best way to get a general feel for the differences is to go to the a webpage featuring pictures of people in these various countries and just look at them. its impossible to make a definitive answer as to...say...how a filipino differs from an indonesian. there is just too much variation to make a definition meaningful.

its impossible to state the differences between all these groups. they dont exist as discrete breeding communities. as with all human populations there is considerable amounts of intermixing of ethnicities.

the best way to get a general feel for the differences is to go to the a webpage featuring pictures of people in these various countries and just look at them. its impossible to make a definitive answer as to...say...how a filipino differs from an indonesian. there is just too much variation to make a definition meaningful.
I would go further than that. It is imposible to say why such diverse individuals have to be included in a certain category (and close guesses don't count).
And it's not "inter-mixing" as much as it is "being an individual".