I know. My point was that it makes a better analogy for typical traditional ==> simplified changes than colour ==> color would. I donât actually look forward to that kind of simplifide Ingglish.
What youâve written looks very interesting and 8 plan on reading the whole thing later.
But the latest DNA studies show that 80% of self-identified ethnic Chinese are Southern Han, 5% Northern Han, and 14.5% similar to Southern Han and distinct from Austronesian.
If you only look at Y-chromosome and only view lineages through a patriarchal lens, then yes.
Like I said, most of Taiwan were matriarchal societies. These early immigrants actually first taiwanified, before social economical pressure eventually forced them to sinicize.
In this previous post, we discussed how most early Austronesian matrilineal societies were fairly opened to taking men from other tribes and cultures in as their husbands, including the Taiwanese Pingpu Aborigines. Austronesian groups that made it past the Wallace Line had no issue taking in non-Austronesian men, despite Austronesians being the dominant culture, to the point where it is difficult to find Austronesian Y-chromosome past the Wallace Line.
As a Han dominant social structure started to form around the 1700s, that probably accelerated the trend, as having a Han family member came with social economical benefits, until eventually they had to give up their cultures, names and languages all together just to avoid discrimination.
Also, since the Qing starting in the late 1800s and the Japanese both enforced a patrilineal society, it became extremely easy for Han Chinese who married into the Pingpu family to takeover control of how land and wealth were distributed.
I think modern genetic evidence is more reliable then guessing who procreated with whom.
It really looks like youâre basing your opinion on historic guesses to try to prove a desired outcome. Iâm embarrassed about some of the people Iâm related to as well, but Iâm not going to do genetic backflips to prove Iâm something Iâm not. Being Chinese has never been about being Han anyway. There have long been a number of sinified minority groups, so rather than discrediting yourself with politicized science by claiming decent from what China calls one of itâs 56 ethnic minorities, you (and your NPP friends) might be better served demonstrating how Taiwanese identity is distinguished from that of China besides freedom and democracy.
I have always personally found it distasteful that indigenous Taiwanese, the people worst off in Taiwan, are used as showpieces for a Taiwanese distinctiveness.
As would Taiwanese, and all Chinaâs other minorities that are not recognized. They probably wouldnât like more that they are all lumped into one minority. I only use it to make the point that claiming some genetic connection is not a convincing measure of Taiwanese distinctiveness.
At present, this is the DPPâs land, and the aborigines are a showpiece. I think it doesnât matter in whoâs hand the land is in, the people who currently identify as indigenous would probably like things to be going a little better for them.
What we should look at is the mitochondrial DNA I guess to see how many of the locals are descended from Pinpu? Any studies on that?
But it depends on how different mito DNA was between the east coast of China and Taiwan maybe five hundred years ago. Because as mentioned already the âhanâ are also a mix of many ethnic groups.
Iâm watching Monkeys vs Guardians and Monkeys just hit a three run HR off Woodall.
In celebration, éłäżç§ two others in the Monkeysâ dugout were lined up in a row, all three sharing a single bat on their left shoulders, bobbing up and down. Wonder if thatâs some sort of aboriginal dance with some bamboo stick. I didnât get a screenshot in time.