f13.net

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/02/17/china.mistress.contest/index.html

This amuses me on so many levels. 

:-o

So very mainland Chinese.

Pimpin' ain't easy.

First criteria, ok. Second...if that's your bag. Third, that one just made me laugh. Chinese chicks in a drinking contest? Awesome.

Chinese businessmen do not like being around drunk girls that can not hold their liquor or, more importantly, a conversation.

So, being able to drink a lot and still function is very important.

Y'all probably have quite a few misconceptions about drinking and the Chinese people. Go on a trip to China. Especially the North.

Yeah but Chinese people in the North are all like 7ft tall, they're hardly indicative of Chinese stereotypes. Beside Northern China has a similar climate to Russia and we know that people in cold countries all have ridiculous alcohol tolerance.

Chinese people are not the same as Japanese people, contrary to whatever Amber has told you.

Some are even blonde, and many have a pinkish, caucasian skintone, unlike all other Asians. Although, this would properly be Mongol, more than Chinese per se.

Not Mongol, Xinjiang.

West of Mongolia.

Sidenote: I met a Mongol named Subutai recently.

This is about as unlikely as meeting an Englishman named William.

--Dave

His god was greater than mine. That's all I know. :oh_i_see:

Oh wait, he also told me that I'm part Mongol myself, for having a blue dot on my ass.

How he came to know I had a blue dot on my ass is beyond the scope of this thread.

Mine is on the small of my back, and I'm a very generic white dude. So somewhere in my family tree there's possibly some Hun blood.

So what you've worked through all the women and are on to the men now?

You slut.

Don't encourage him to share. We all lose.

Oban speaks the truth. This guy probably liked to entertain at so called "hostess bars" which are popular in Asian and being able to sing karaoke well and drink as much as he can would be important "skills" as a mistress if he took her along to these places.

The drinking at goes on at Chinese weddings is just obnoxious.

Also, it's sort of a problem if your male and cannot drink much in a Chinese family, or so I am told.

So my Irish family and a Chinese family would get along? Interesting...  :grin:

What a disturbing thought.

Now I need to go out and buy a thousand earplugs.

TMI


The places you draw your lines amuse me.

Also, this was my favorite bit:

Part baboon are we?

It's very miniscule, as if someone dotted me with a marker, and it faded a bit since I was a kid. The baboon probably goes back eons ago.

I read an article where the spots can be very big on some children, cover parts of the back even, and some parents have even been accused of child abuse because the spots resemble bruising.

Heh.

Please, describe it in more detail.  Perhaps pictures would help.

Wait, wait, wait. 

I thought East Asians naturally produced less of the enzyme the broke down alcohol than Europeans?  Meaning that generally European ethnic backgrounds have better tolerance than East Asians?

From http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/v17n3/p18.html (http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/v17n3/p18.html) ::


However, alcohol tolerance is something that can be built up over time.  Just like a resistance to the deadly iocane powder.

I'd still like to see a Chinese v. Irish showdown. The only problem would be that my people would start tossing fists around before someone actually won.  :oh_i_see:

Your people. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYuIYNaKynI)

Mongolian Spot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_spot).  It's actually also very common in Native Americans, where it is not the product of the Golden Horde.  Probably common descent from the same central Asian gene stock referenced in that article on metabolizing alcohol.

--Dave

Not to be un-PC, but aren't there various theories that Native Americans either came from Asia via the Bering straight or some other means around 13k years ago? Could they not have been Mongolian among other things?

Pfft. Bering Strait. :roll: Everyone knows the Indians were the original Jewish Mormons.

13k years ago there wouldn't have been a Mongolia to contain Mongolians, hence my saying "common descent from the same central Asian gene stock".  Yes, the dominant theory is that Native Americans are the descendants of Asian genestock from a Bering Landbridge crossing, and the variants on the theory mostly turn on whether there was one such crossing, or two (Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA mapping is pointing strongly to the "two crossings" theory), and what part the Inuit (Eskimo) played in that (whether they emerged separately from northern Asia, or from northern Canada, or are some completely separate branch from the original migration{s}).  Native Americans display certain traits that are strongly associated with Asian genes (the spot and the lack of alcohol tolerance being the most obvious), but lack others (epicanthic folds being highest on the list), arguing for a non-oriental origin from central Asian herders/nomads that also resulted in the Mongols of history (who were originally much less "oriental" in appearance than typically depicted, according to some sources).

Hunter nomads who move with the herds can cover a *lot* of ground in 13,000 years.  There's a lot of work being done on this, but the best theory I've seen basically says that Homo Sapiens spread out along coastlines as a fishing culture, developing mutations as it went (because the leading edge was always a small gene pool with little competition).  Then these differentiated gene stocks started spreading inland, developing different survival strategies (and more mutations) as they went, and Native Americans are actually the descendants of ancestors that originated somewhere around the Caspian, in what is now western Kazakhstan, who learned how to build portable shelters and spread throughout inland Asia, where they ran into the Oriental root stock cultures spreading up the rivers with a proto-agricultural gathering lifestyle, and were pushed north and east across the landbridge.

--Dave

Sidetrack, but how would that be un-PC? I don't get PC, really, it's such a lot of cobblers.

Some Native American activists get really pissed off over the "two crossings" theories and their variants, because it looks like an early neolithic culture was already established (at least in North America), and then was wiped out by a late neolithic culture from Central Asia.  It undercuts their sense of moral outrage and their frontrunner status in the Oppression Olympics, "We were here first" is much higher moral ground than "We stole it first".

Unfortunately, the science is not their friend.  In addition to remains and archaeological finds that pre-date the period in question, and the oddities in the spread and disappearance of Clovis Points and skeletal structures of remains, mitochondrial and Y chromosome mappings are supporting the "two crossings" theory.  This Wikipedia article on "Kennewick Man" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man) gives a little bit of an overview on the issue:
The "Solutrean Hypothesis" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis), basically that North America was first settled from Europe around 17K years ago, can *really* get them worked up.

--Dave

You see that's why I hate political correctness. Anything that gets people upset about attempts to actually explain the world scientifically is clearly bollocks.

The dangers of identity politics becoming more important than class politics ya see  :why_so_serious:

Another sidetrack, but are there any native americans with epicanthic folds..? I'm just curious. I know it's a recent phenomenon for many Asians to stress about this (unfortunately).

Because then he'd be calling my great grandma a Hun instead of an Injun?  Dunno.  It confused me, too.

The only people I can think of caring have their professional credibility staked on North American Natives having sprung fully formed from the ground, and I don't think they're taken seriously enough for that to matter.

It is a huge deal for native groups trying to make land claims and when a dig turns up something.

Also, it takes away their moral superiority during government related negotiations.

So for most natives, yes it is a big deal.

Anyway, this is a derail that should be directed to the politics forum if we want to continue.

Thirteen thousand years of living in an unoccupied land still trumps wiping out the existing populations a few hundred years ago.

I realize with the breakdown in logic people will have it's not that clean cut, but as far as I'm concerned their standing is as good as before.  Maybe if I had a personal stake in it I would feel differently, but since I already side strongly with native populations, I dunno.  How many millenia aren't good enough?

I live in an area with a lot of native land claims, and it's always an issue trying to get out of taxes and whatnot.

I have a solution. Ok, we showed up and took your land. You can continue to live on your land claims and not pay taxes. In return, you receive no services and you have to live in fucking longhouses and wear doeskin and go back to killing your neighbors ad nauseum.

Sure, things sucked a few hundred years ago. Things are immeasurably better now, in a way that couldn't be dreamt of by the savages shitting in the woods.

You sir are an upstanding human being with clear and reasoned opinions on matters pertaining to morality and the context thereof. Or something.

Also I'm really not sure what else Native American populations expected. I can't imagine they would seriously claim that they evolved here from some pre-existing species harking back to the beginning of life on earth so obviously at some point they had ancestors that came here from somewhere else. We all fucking came out of Africa (probably) at some point long, long ago, is the fact that they did too really such a shock?

Ok, since we are going down this path...

The issue is that sure the Europeans may have done bad things to you five hundred years ago, but just before they did your tribe wiped out the local inhabitants of the region.  So, your tribe claims the land when an archaeological dig begins, but when the researchers determine that the tribe found is not related to your tribe... well, it means the show is over for people who believe that natives were peaceful earth loving people.

Hint, the tribes that remained were the ones that survived.

Oh, and if you find a Norse burial site under the tribal lands...

Like I said, I live in an area that's really in big contention, and they try to gloss it with heritage and whatnot, but it's all about money. Millions of casino dollars, tax-free. Especially now that the state is going into the shitter, it's gloves-off time. Should be interesting.

And though I sound like a dick in the previous post, I love the local heritage, it's fascinating to live in the birthplace of the non-western democracy (or would it be the true western democracy?), the Iroquois Nation. There is some truly spectacular shit that was going down before it all got fucked up by the palefaces. Also, I'm not a big fan of early white expansion, our ancestors were some real motherfuckers (literally).

But I think that the past is the past and we should be focusing on the present and the future, while remembering the lessons of the past.

So we should send blankets to China?

The only fault of my ancestors is that my great grandpa, a danish soldier, made a stop in new orleans, and decided to go awol. That's the beginning of America in my family's past. He never did anything to native americans. Screwed his own country, more like it!

We can't find family records prior to the revolution on my mother's side. We know we had an officer serving under General Knox because he got a land grant in Maine, but not sure what we were up to before that. My dad's family is potato famine immigrants, cops and firemen. So it's possible someone on my mother's side kicked some native ass, given that they were officer material that far back, though again, it's sketchy and he may have risen through the ranks during the war.

The issue with contested land claims is not typically related to who invaded whom, but with treaties (allegedly) being broken. This is particularly tricky with native groups who didn't have written language, and relied on oral tradition to record what had been agreed.