Rice Is Bad.

East Asians eat too much rice. In the poorer segments of East Asian society, this is bad, as people will often forgo more nutritious foods such as vegetables or other grains simply so that they can buy enough rice. This condition is increasing as the price of rice has risen due to Cyclone Nargis in Burma, crop failures in Australia, and increased demand in India and China. The rise in the price of oil and fertilizer also has bumped up the prices of many crops besides rice. And so poor Asians are trying hard to obtain more of their traditional staple. However, many are forgoing consuming far more beneficial foods than rice simply so that they can eat this almost useless grain.

Rice, far more costly than it is worth.

Such is the case in this Indonesian situation (great article, worth reading). The article tells of how people on the Indonesian island of Lombok have extremely fertile soil, and can grow a number of vegetable and starch crops, but are selling those crops to buy rice for their people, including their children. While the children receive enough carbohydrates from the rice, they are malnourished because they are not receiving enough vitamins and minerals--which they could easily obtain if they would just eat the food growing around them. The article points out that the consumption of rice is so ingrained in the culture the people feel that eating rice is necessary. Other stories mention how people do not feel full if rice is not a part of their meal. That ingrained cultural trait has to change, not only in Indonesia, but in all of East and South Asia.

The fact is, the primary reason rice is grown and consumed is because it was originally one of the most successful crops capable of feeding many people. But it is far from nutritious, even compared to other grains or starch crops.

This nutrient profile for a cup of white rice shows how lacking rice is. It has almost no vitamin C or A, and is without several B vitamins. After looking at the profile for a cup's worth of dried rice (after boiling), compare the profile to that of a common white potato. The potato is the most commonly eaten type, and is itself not particularly nutritious, and yet is still leaps and bounds ahead of rice. Then there is corn, and whole wheat flour, and white flour, and cassava, and taro.

None of these would be classified as superfood, and some--such as white flour--are about as nutritionally deficient as rice. But some are a smarter choice than rice, and are cheaper and can grow in tropical environments easily, too.

Asians (and non-Asians) should eat more vegetables.

And that is not all. While some carbohydrate consumption is necessary, all carbohydrates are is basically a source of energy, to 'keep people up and running' as it were. Carbohydrates do not build muscle, do not build bone, but they do build fat. Many bodily functions require nutrients not easily obtained by a diet so heavy in rice. Vegetables and meat are necessary, and in terms of nutrients are far more valuable than rice or the other starch sources.

And that is the crux of the issue. While a daily intake of meat is out of reach for some of the poorest Asians, vegetables should not be. Most Asians eat plenty enough rice, even the poor ones. What they need are the nutrients found in vegetables. If they have to choose between vegetables and rice, and are already receiving enough carbohydrates, then they should choose the vegetables.

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries.

Tag this post with:
Delicious	Digg	Technorati	reddit	Facebook	StumbleUpon	Furl	blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.

Austronesian vs. Australoid.

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. 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.

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries.

Tag this post with:
Delicious	Digg	Technorati	reddit	Facebook	StumbleUpon	Furl	blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.

Review of "Are Asians Racist?"

Although quite dated (1999), this Australian Broadcasting Corporation transcript of a speech titled, "Are Asians Racist?" is in general a superb first overview of East Asian racism for those unfamiliar with the subject, though it--as the speaker acknowledges--only scratches the surface on racism in Asia.

The piece accurately points out that racism is more endemic in Northeast Asia, referred to as North Asia in the piece. Also picked up on is that Japan and Korea especially can be singled out for having large levels of racism that pervades their societies. China is also mentioned in this group, but the criticism is less pointed.

In contrast, Southeast Asia is considered, in the speech, to be less racist than Northeast Asia, but also more communalist; that is, there is a fair amount of discrimination along culturally ethnic lines, rather than genetically racial ones. Malaysia is depicted as the major communalist country in the region, while Singapore, the Philippines, and Thailand are portrayed as somewhat less prejudiced about ethnicity.

The speech makes note of the fact that across East Asia the group facing the most racism is that of 'blacks,' who are subject--to varying degrees--in both Northeast and Southeast Asia.

There are a few, relatively minor, inaccuracies, however. For instance, pointing to massacres of ethnic Chinese in the Philippines as being a case of communalism. While some were due to resentment of the Chinese' relative economic success (as a group) in the Philippines, a huge number of those ethnic Chinese massacred were killed because of Chinese uprising against Spanish rule (the Philippines was a Spanish possession from the 1500s to 1898). Although the ethnic Chinese might have been directly killed by Filipinos, it was on orders from Spanish officers and the Spanish colonial government. Nor were those particular massacres borne of nativist resentment against the ethnic 'foreigners,' but were the military response to insurrections which occasionally flared up in the ethnic Chinese community.

Overall, the speech was excellent, and ended on an extremely pertinent point: Asians are human, and all human groups have difficulties surrounding the concept of racism. Asians, Africans, Europeans, Amerindians, etc. all share with each other both their virtues and their disgraces.


--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries.

Tag this post with:
Delicious	Digg	Technorati	reddit	Facebook	StumbleUpon	Furl	blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.

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.

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries.

Tag this post with:
Delicious	Digg	Technorati	reddit	Facebook	StumbleUpon	Furl	blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.

Mr. Hu's Neighborhood. (Third Part)

In the two preceding articles, the point was made that China's rise is being viewed as a challenge and a threat by the other nations of East Asia. Now will be discussed Asian states which are already under China's thrall or are setting themselves up for it, along with the conclusion to the series.

East Asian countries currently more-or-less free from China's influence are watching their giant neighbor closely for signs of a more belligerent Beijing. And as the Chinese economy expands, China does seem to be taking on a more militant and commanding tone toward its neighbors. But what about states already greatly influenced and dependent on Chinese support, notably North Korea and Burma. The Soviet Union had East Germany and Poland. Communist China has North Korea and Burma.

North Korea is almost completely dependent on China for its survival. Even with Beijing propping it up, the Hermit Kingdom is on the verge of destitution. While North Korea has nuclear weapons--sort of, their attempt did not fully explode--it people are starving to death. The 'Dear Leader' has already ticked off China quite a bit, bringing the United States to look even closer at the region, and pressuring the country to increase an American military--and diplomatic--presence in East Asia. If China becomes too fed up and the current North Korean President dies, China could ignore Kim's successor and just invade North Korea, potentially strongarming Kim into bequeathing his country to China on his deathbed--or say that was the case. As is, North Korea is already currently a de facto Chinese protectorate.

The other country, Burma, is less under the thumb of China, in part due to its alternative options of trading with India and its fellow ASEAN states, in part due to its rich endowment of natural resources such as gems and luxury timber. Still, the Communist government in Beijing exerts considerable influence on the Burmese military junta. China could have forced the junta into letting in foreign aid after Cyclone Nargis devastated southern Burma, particularly the Delta region, but didn't. It's in China's interest to have a weak Burmese protectorate.

Which leads to ASEAN. The members of the Association of South East Asian Nations are set to form a free trade agreement with China. This will be a debacle for the comparatively small states in ASEAN. They will be flooded with far more cheap Chinese products which will out-compete their native industries, while the agreement will not bring in all that much Chinese foreign investment.

Now, if ASEAN actually worked as a solid unit, functioning as one, ASEAN could benefit from such an FTA with China. ASEAN could rival China. The Association has less people, but is strategically located to take advantage of trade with both China and India, while resource rich Australia is ASEAN's southern neighbor.

But the members of ASEAN don't follow a policy of solidarity. Each member looks out for itself, often to the detriment of the other member states. Pity for them; they will be picked off--at least economically, if not economically and militarily--one by one. As a group, they could challenge China. As individuals they could be crushed by China.

Conclusion

China's neighbors in Northeast and Southeast Asia are wise to closely monitor China and try to either guide its development to a peaceful end, or try to inhibit China's advancement. Japan is advanced and powerful, and has powerful friends (the United States and the EU), but will have to work hard to keep China in check. Small nations have to prepare for the Chinese dragon to snap at them. ASEAN ought to capitalize on their supposed unity and work as one. And ASEAN makes the most poignant point:

If China's neighbors want to keep their 'big brother' in line, they will have to work together, from Japan to Indonesia, from Mongolia to Burma, and work as one to make themselves into a 'bigger brother' that can confront China should the need arise. If they don't they all can look forward to an East Asia ruled from Beijing.



--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
The Roadmap to the Future.
The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries.

Tag this post with:
Delicious	Digg	Technorati	reddit	Facebook	StumbleUpon	Furl	blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.

Mr. Hu's Neighborhood. (First Part)

The day isn't so wonderful in this neighborhood. While much of the world watches the rise of China, few nations are monitoring the ascendancy of China as closely as that country's nearest neighboring countries, the states with the most to lose should a superpower China suddenly turn from generally peaceful to openly hostile to foreign states.

From Japan to Timor, to Mongolia and Burma (and including Tibet and East Turkmenistan/Xinjiang), China's regional neighbors have long experience with dealing with the Middle Kingdom, although for some nations--such as those in the Malay Archipelago--this experience has been diluted by almost a half millennium of Western influence pushing out native pre-Western history and culture. These are nations which have dealt with China for around a millennium or more. And these are the nations, far more than those in the West, Middle East, or Africa, that can most accurately 'read' the actions of the giant in their part of the globe.

It is hard to downplay China's impact in the region's cultural development. Japan, a country which throughout its history was not a part of the Han Chinese Empire, still adopted Chinese characters in its writing system (referred to as kanji in Japanese), and many cultural traits deemed as 'Japanese' in the West are of Chinese origin (for instance, bonsai trees). The pre-Spanish Philippines, largely outside of the Chinese sphere of influence--South East Asia was primarily under the Indic (Indian) sphere of influence--still adopted much from southeastern Chinese cuisine, and Tagalog contains many loanwords from the Hakka (or Fukkian/Fujian) Chinese dialect. And, of course, Korea and Vietnam were both vassal states of China, occasionally considered part of China itself, much the way Tibet and East Turkmenistan are today.

It is Japan that has the most to lose economically and politically from an ascendant China. The second largest economy on Earth, and for over a century the dominant power native to Asia, Tokyo's geopolitical influence is today being challenged by Beijing. In future, China is set to eclipse Japan. Japan, with a decreasing and rapidly aging population and stagnant economic growth, simply will be hard-pressed to compete with China. Militarily, Japan currently has one of the most advanced militaries in the world, but China is speedily catching up in this field, too--in part due to stealing technologies from more advanced nations.

And if Japan is about to become a minnow in a pond where it was the big fish, then what about smaller and less developed states?
--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
The Roadmap to the Future.
The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries.

Tag this post with:
Delicious	Digg	Technorati	reddit	Facebook	StumbleUpon	Furl	blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.