Orang Asli

[Prince Abubu]

There are a few indigenous groups in Malaysia and Indonesia.

Orang Asli

The most interesting group are the Negritos. They speak a Mon-Khmer language related to Cambodian and Vietnamese, yet they look like a mix of Africans and Papuans. Strange.

 

[Apollo]

''Mongoloids'' (or the ''Northeast Asian'' race) isn't native to Southeast Asia. They descend from South Chinese farmers who expanded during the Neolithic from South China > Taiwan > Philippines > Malay Archipelago.

Austronesian is also linguistically related to Austroasiatic and Sino-Tibetan (Mandarin Chinese), but in East Asia anthropologists/linguistics are extreme nationalists who don't like their language to be grouped with people they split from thousands of years ago. Same with Japanese being a pseudo ''language isolate'' when it is clearly related to Korean and Altaic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Austronesian_languages#Starosta_(2005)

For most of history (pre-5,000 BCE up to ~50,000 BCE) SEA was primarily inhabited by black-ish looking people of the Australo-Melanesian type.

 

[Prince Abubu]

''Mongoloids'' (or the ''Northeast Asian'' race) isn't native to Southeast Asia. They descend from South Chinese farmers who expanded during the Neolithic from South China > Taiwan > Philippines > Malay Archipelago.

Austronesian is also linguistically related to Austroasiatic and Sino-Tibetan (Mandarin Chinese), but in East Asia anthropologists/linguistics are extreme nationalists who don't like their language to be grouped with people they split from thousands of years ago. Same with Japanese being a pseudo ''language isolate'' when it is clearly related to Korean and Altaic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Austronesian_languages#Starosta_(2005)

For most of history (pre-5,000 BCE up to ~50,000 BCE) SEA was primarily inhabited by black-ish looking people of the Australo-Melanesian type.

Are you sure about those claims? Those are Spicy hot-takes.

> Japanese and Korean are both related and they both fall under Altaic.
> Austronesian, Austro-Asiatic and Sino-Tibetan are all related.

Those are very bold claims. I don't see how nationalism and racism would prevent non-Asian linguists and anthropologists from linking those languages. Western academics don't give a f*ck about Asian politics.

 

[Apollo]

Are you sure about those claims? Those are Spicy hot-takes.

> Japanese and Korean are both related and they both fall under Altaic.
> Austronesian, Austro-Asiatic and Sino-Tibetan are all related.

Those are very bold claims. I don't see how nationalism and racism would prevent non-Asian linguists and anthropologists from linking those languages. Western academics don't give a f*ck about Asian politics.

They are weakly related, sort of on the level of how Cushitic is related to all those North African/Middle Eastern languages (even if you remove all the Arabic loanwords).

Because linguistics isn't a big field in the Horn or Africa for that matter, nobody was there to claim otherwise and this Afro-Asiatic grouping created by Westerners was accepted.

However, in East Asia they have many native linguistic scholars and because of this their nationalism kicks in and they often reject big linguistic groupings for their East Asian languages.

PS. Most Western linguists are lefty PC types who would yield towards ''the perspective of the native''. Japanese is definitely Altaic contrary to what the Japanese think.