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.