Austronesian vs. Australoid.

Austronesian vs. Australoid.
History: The Roadmap to the Future–Asia.

There is a misconception in some quarters about the definition of the words Austronesian and Australoid (or Australian), chiefly that they are synonymous and interchangeable or that they are related to each other. In actuality, they are both distinct words.

So, to start off, their definitions:

Austronesian: of, relating to, or constituting a family of languages spoken in the area extending from Madagascar eastward through the Malay Peninsula and Archipelago to Hawaii and Easter Island and including practically all the native languages of the Pacific islands with the exception of the Australian and Papuan languages. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

Australoid: of or relating to a racial group including the Australian aborigines and other peoples of southern Asia and Pacific islands (Merriam-Webster Dictionary; there wasn’t a Britannica entry for Australoid).

Etymologically, term ‘Austronesian’ would translate into south island [adjective/noun], from austro- (south) nes (island) -ian (suffix forming an adjective or noun). Meanwhile, ‘Australoid’ would translate into southern, from Austra(lia)- (south) -oid (suffix forming an adjective). Australoid is essentially synonymous with Australian (Australia is ’south continent/land’), but is used to distinguish a ‘racial’ categorization from the nationality (which is primarily ‘racially’ Caucasoid). It is also used for people with physical traits similar to that of Australian Aborigines.

As words, Austronesian is no more related to Australoid than South Korea is related to South Carolina or South Africa being related to South Island (New Zealand). They both contain ‘austr,’ which is ’south.’ They share this with Austria (’south country’), Austro-Asiatic (’south Asian’), among other words.

Confusion arises due to the belief by some that Austronesians and Australoid peoples are of the same ‘race.’ While this will be elaborated soon, it should be pointed out that the origin of the Austronesian ethnicities are traced to the island of Taiwan, while Australian Aborigines are from Australia. The proto-Austronesians are considered to have their origin in what is now the South Chinese mainland, and the civilization is noted for the cultivation of rice and taro, the domestication of pigs, dogs, and chickens, the making of pottery and textiles, along with their considerable seafaring capabilities with their outrigger canoes and navigation by stars. In contrast, the Australian Aborigines were a ‘landlubbing’ people until the arrival of Europeans in Australia.

The misunderstanding is compounded by many Austronesian peoples having either Melanesian or Melanesoid blood. Melanesians have physical characteristics that (to at least Western eyes) tend to look similar to Australian Aborigines. It should be pointed out though, that the evidence seems to show that the colonization of Australia was a one-way process. That is, highly dark skinned people with tightly curly hair colonized Australia from Asia, but the dark skinned, tightly curly haired people who make up a minority in countries such as the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and Cambodia are not the descendants of Australian Aborigines. Orang Aslia/Aeta/Negrito type peoples and Australian Aborigines are considered to have been separated millennia ago, as the end of the Ice Age caused land bridges to become submerged. This division of peoples is comparable to that of Europeans, Africans, Asians, and Amerindians. The island of New Guinea also separated from Australia a few millennia ago, as did Tasmania.

It is quite conceivable that the average Malay has a small trace of Orang Asli/Aeta blood, while Polynesians have Melanesian (New Guinean) genes–and Malagasy in Madagascar have plenty of African genes. (It should be pointed out, that Yamada Japanese probably have far more Ainu–often considered Australoid–blood in their veins than Malays have a Negrito contribution to their gene pool). However, the typical Malay is still overwhelmingly closer genetically to Asian ‘races’ such as the Chinese or Vietnamese than they are to Orang Asli/Aetas. Malays in the Philippines, Malaysia, and western Indonesia would not have Melanesian blood. Neither Malays, Polynesians, nor Malagasy would be any more of Australian Aboriginal descent than Nordics or Mayans.

In conclusion, the confusion between ‘Austronesian’ and ‘Australoid’ arises primarily due to the semantic similarity between these uncommon, infrequently-used terms, along with bigotry which suggests a (apparently unflattering) genetic link between Australian Aborigines and Malayo-Polynesians.

Neither Austronesians nor Australoids nor any human ‘race’ in the human race deserves that.

History: The Roadmap to the Future–Asia.

Filipinos Are Asian–Get Used to It.

There seems to be a common misconception in the United States and Asia, and probably–to some extent–in the rest of the world, that Filipinos are not Asian, but are instead Pacific Islanders. Ironically, major proponents of this view are so-called Filipino Americans. That Filipinos are Asian should not even be an issue that is up for debate at all. This article will try to set some things straight.

Geography

The CIA World Factbook locates the Republic of the Philippines as being in “Southeastern Asia, archipelago between the Philippine Sea and the South China Sea, east of Vietnam.” The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the Philippines as, “country E Asia comprising the Philippine Islands; a republic; once a Spanish possession & (1898–1946) a United States possession capital Manila.” The archipelago comprising the Philippines is indisputably a part of Asia. Insular Southeast Asia, to be specific. If you don’t believe the map provided here, then look at a world map or a globe. The Philippines’ direct northern neighbor is Taiwan, with Japan (via the Ryukyus) just a little off to the northeast. China (mainland) is to the northwest. Those are not only considered Asian, but Northeast Asian. Malaysia is to the southeast. And the Moluccas (part of Indonesia) is to Mindanao’s south. The Philippines is on the eastern edge of the South China Sea, the same as with Taiwan, insular Malaysia, and Brunei. Yes, the Philippines is located on islands in the Pacific Ocean. Taiwan is an island in the Pacific Ocean. Japan is located on islands in the Pacific Ocean. Korea and China both have islands in the Pacific Ocean. And the bulk of the Southeast Asian population lives on islands in the Pacific Ocean. Yet these countries’ peoples are not Pacific Islanders. Nor are the Philippines’ people. Filipinos are not Pacific Islanders. From a geographic standpoint, you cannot argue that the Philippines is not a part of Asia.

Ethnicity
The typical Filipino is of the Malay ethnicity, the same as Malaysians, Indonesians, and people in Brunei. Genetically, Filipinos of Luzon (the largest and most populous island in the Philippines) have a genetic affinity with native peoples of Taiwan. In addition to the Malay majority, there are Aeta (who are Melanesoid–which is not the same as Australoid), Chinese, and European minorities.

Filipino culture is easily the most Western of all ‘Eastern’ countries. However, Filipinos still retain much of their pre-Spanish culture, notably the languages, ranging from Tagalog to Cebuano to Ingorot, which are closely related to languages on the island of Borneo. The Filipino cuisine, while having considerable Malay traits, is heavily Chinese influenced, for instance, lumpia. The copious use of sugar, plantains, and coconut milk in recipes ties the food of the Philippines to both mainland and insular Southeast Asia.

Now, it is the case that Philippine languages are part of the Austronesian (not be confused with Australian/Australoid) language family, which is spoken from Taiwan to Indonesia to Vietnam and Thailand to Madagascar to Hawaii. A few researchers consider Japanese, Korean, the Austro-Asiatic (Southeast Asian), Thai-Kadai, or even Sino-Tibetan languages to be related to Austronesian, either as individuals, or as a great, East Asian language family. However, the spread of this language family (and civilization) was from Asia (particularly Taiwan) to Polynesia (and Africa in the case of Madagascar), not the other way around. Saying that Filipinos are Pacific Islanders is (although the time frame is wider) akin to saying that Northeast Asians are Amerindians; you could argue that Amerindians are Northeast Asians (a stretch), but not the other way around. To use a shorter time frame, saying that Filipinos are Pacific Islanders is akin to stating that Europeans are pan-Americans, or even mestizos, depending on whether or not Polynesians have Melanesian genes; Europeans are not from the Americas, but many pan-Americans can trace their lineage to Europe. Filipinos are not from the Pacific Islands, but many Pacific Islanders can trace their lineage to (what is now) the Philippines.

Ethnically, the Filipinos are Asian.

History

Historically, the case for Filipinos being Asian is strong. The Philippines are considered to have first been settled by the ancestors of the Aetas, who came from Southeast Asia (the Aeta bear similarities to the Orang Asli of the Malay Peninsula–on mainland Asia). The bulk of the population is descended from immigrants from Taiwan, the original Austronesians, the preponderance of whom have now become to be referred to as ‘Malay.’ (Other Austronesian groups include the natives of Taiwan, the Cham of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Thailand, and peoples on China’s Hainan Island). The ancestors of the Malay Filipinos arrived a few millennia ago, and brought with them rice cultivation and domesticated pigs, dogs, and chickens.

What is now the Philippines was part of an ancient Southeast Asian trade network in jade from Taiwan being distributed to lands in the Philippines, Vietnam, and Thailand. The advent of bronze in the Philippines (around 500BC) and the beginning of the Philippine Iron Age (around 200BC) are considered to have occurred due to contact and trade with Southeast Asia–the short time frame between the smelting of bronze and iron suggests this, along with tin–required for bronze–not being found in large quantities in the Philippines. 200BC is also when some believe first Philippine contact with Indians (from India) was achieved, and trade started. AD900 is the date of the Laguna Copperplate Inscription. The writing is written in Kavi, a Javanese (Indonesian) script, which traces it lineage to Indic writing systems. Personally question the authenticity of this artifact. If genuine, then technically Philippine history would begin in AD900 (history begins when there are written records). However, when the Spanish arrived, only Tagalogs were using writing, and that writing was Baybayin (also referred to as alibata), a writing system that was not as efficient at writing down Tagalog as Kavi. Baybayin is considered to have come into existence around AD1200 at the earliest. If the artifact is authentic, then why wasn’t writing more widespread when the Spaniards arrived, and why was the writing system not based directly on Kavi and capable of accurately expressing spoken Tagalog in written form?

Anyway, the first Chinese records of Filipinos (from Luzon, or Luzones) are dated to around this time, and the first written Chinese records of the Philippines a bit afterwards. By the advent of the Spanish, Sino-Philippine trade was such that the Philippines were flooded with Chinese porcelain and the Filipinos were no longer mining their own iron ore (though they still smelted and fashioned it). A note about the bad points of globalization: the Philippine pottery industry was retarded because local artisans couldn’t compete with cheaper but more sophisticated Chinese ware, and importing old iron instruments or raw iron ore from China was cheaper than mining the stuff in the Philippines. Also, when the Spaniards arrived, the Philippines was in trade contact with Japan.

The Philippines traded with other Asian states and peoples since antiquity, during foreign, Western rule, and still trade with other Asian nations today.

Conclusion

Above, it has been shown that from a geographic, ethnic, and historic point of view, the Philippines and Filipinos are clearly Asian. That is not up for questioning. It is just a fact. Just as much as Chinese, Japanese, or Vietnamese, Filipinos are Asian.

History: The Roadmap to the Future–Asia.

Why was Star Trek: Enterprise So Bad?

Read “Why Star Trek: Enterprise Stank.”

The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.