What's the origin of the Japanese people?

[miyuki]

I found the word in "Suiheisya sengen(1922)," which was the declaration that they demanded the degnity of human beings.
They called themselves so with pain and pride.

 

[-Z3oM-]

japan ppl originated frm korea...www.uglychinese.org has the info

 

[sonatinefan]

linguistic evidence for origins?

Hello,

Linguistically I read that Japanese is primarily Altaic, but with a significant Austronesian substructure. Perhaps this supports the theory that there were different factors-One from Southeast Asia, and another from Northeast Asia, and the Ainu.
I have also read a theory that the Altaic component of Japanese may be related to the language spoken in Archaic Koguryo, a kingdom located in Korea and Manchuria attested in 30 BCE.

 

[Grandpa Frank]

If....

you turn them upside down, it says on their feet : "MADE IN JAPAN".

Frank

:? :blush:

 

[Martialartsnovice]

Excuse Me, Maciamo

I like you are right when you sadi that the Ainu gene/bloodlines would have come from Lake Bakal in Siberia. But What led to the migration as you said was the ice age and land bridges. It was the case also for the Native American Indian Tribes, with their migration, they did it to follow their food supplies, afterwards the bridges were deestroyed by the glacial recession. It could have been the cases with the Ainu, they must have followed their food animals down the continent to the Isalnds of present day Japan (Nihon). As for the darker gene coloration, it could have been a migratory wave as noted in earlier postings, or it could have been a physical adaption to life on an Island. The Native Americans have beeen gene-mapped to their origins for common ancestory, and European and American scientists and genetists have found that most current Asian peoples and Native American Indian tribes share the same ancestoral beginings. But as for the ear wax idea, it is a physicla change to suit the enviroment of the persons surroundings.

 

[ToMach]

Linguistically I read that Japanese is primarily Altaic, but with a significant Austronesian substructure. Perhaps this supports the theory that there were different factors-One from Southeast Asia, and another from Northeast Asia, and the Ainu.
I have also read a theory that the Altaic component of Japanese may be related to the language spoken in Archaic Koguryo, a kingdom located in Korea and Manchuria attested in 30 BCE.

Japanese has in deed some caracteristics that make it close to the Altaic languages (Turkic, Mongolian, Manchu-Tungusic, Korean), but the Altaic languages don't constitue a genetic language family, as Indo-European for example. Their similarities come from cohabitation and borrowing. It is thus not surprising that Japanese would share some of those similarities if it comes from NE Asia.
The evidence for a link with Austronesian is rather thin.
About Koguryo, the places name of this kingdom look similar to Japanese, but we don't know if it reflects the language of Koguryo neither what this language really was.

I have noticed myself quite a few similarities between Bahasa Indonesia/Malaysia and Japanese language. Apart from the very similar pronounciation in both languages, there is the same hierarchical differences in personal pronouns. For example "you" is either "anda" or "kamu" with the same meaning and wa of using as "anata" and "kimi" in Japanese. Likewise, "suki" D'« (to like) translates "suka" in Bahasa. Such similarities are striking. In both languages you can make a plural by doubling the word, like wareware in Japanese (ware = I or you, wareware = we). Doubling of words is so common that there is a kanji that only means the word is doubled(" X") in written Japanese. However, it is more common in Bahasa nowadays where it is almost systematical. Expressions like "ittekimasu, itteirashai, tadaima and okaeri" also exist in Indonesian (selamat jalan, selamat tinggal...), but not in European languages. I am not a specialist of any of these languages at all. I barely know a few words in Indonesian, but it's enough to see the link with Japanese.

Sorry to say that, but for me it is far away from enough to see a link with those 2 languages. You cannot establish a relationship with typological similarities (pronunciation, word order, grammatical constructions, etc) or with one or two words that look like (anata for "you" is quite recent in Japanese, and kimi means "lord" at first). The methodology of historical linguistics is far more exigeant.

Japanese and Korean grammar are very similar. My Koreans acquaintances in Japan told me that some words were also almost identical, such as kazoku, sentaku or hakkiri.

Those words are identical because they are borrowings of the same word in Chinese (not hakkiri)

I read that the Ainu were from Europe, not Western Europe, like England and France, but more of East Europe, like Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania.

No the Aynu are definitely Asians, and more precisely mongoloids (not mongolians!). It is clear from biologic studies.

People from Okinawa don't look Ainu at all. Their language is related to some native languages of Taiwan (i.e. not Mandarin Chinese), not to the Ainu language, nor Japanese

Sorry, but this is entirely wrong. People from Okinawa and other Ryukyu islands are closer to Jomon people and to Aynu than Mainland Japanese. And they speak what we call "Ryukyuan", a sister language of Japanese, not related to the languages of Taiwan.

I don't think Japanese are closer to Amerindians or Inuits than from Korean and Chinese (and even South-East Asian). Physically they are much closer to Korean and Chinese. SE Asian have darker skin and can be divided in subgroups. Cambodian have very dark skin, but not Vietnamese. Real Thai have brown skin, but many are white because of Chinese imigration (especiallu\y in Bangkok).

You can't make conclusions from such basic observations. You have to look at the squeletons, blood, DNA, etc.

Japanese can't be from the same Northern Mongoloid group as Ameridians because Ameridians went to America about 10.000 years ago

They can, we can suppose that the Ameridians separated form the group very early (thus their great differences) and migraed, while the other stayed and evolved into what would become Chinese, Japanese and other NE Asian people

I guess some of Western Japan's dialect must be even closer to Korean. Unfortunately, I don't know anyobody who speaks Western Japanese dialects (such as Northern Kyushuu) and Korean. Any Japano-Korean linguists here ?

No, Western dialects are not closer to Korean.

Ancient Korean word for Japanese "matsuri" was "ma'z'ri" which meant "welcome the Gods"

Sorry to tell you that this is a lie. Now, if you have any concrete evidence, I would be glad to see it

 

[bossel]

Sorry, but this is entirely wrong. People from Okinawa and other Ryukyu islands are closer to Jomon people and to Aynu than Mainland Japanese. And they speak what we call "Ryukyuan", a sister language of Japanese, not related to the languages of Taiwan.

Not quite so, I think. At least according to this
study:

"In the principal components analysis 3 Japanese populations (Ryukyuans, Hondo Japanese, and Ainu) formed a cluster and showed the highest affinity to 2 Korean populations. In the phylogenetic tree Ryukyuans and Ainu were neighbors, but the genetic distance between them was larger than the distances between Ryukyuans and Hondo Japanese and between Ryukyuans and Korean populations."

 

[canadian_kor]

ToMach, are you familiar with the horse-rider theory about the origins of Japanese? (That the ancestors of the Yayoi were horse-riders from Siberia that passed through Korea and conquered the Jomon natives.)

 

[ToMach]

Not quite so, I think. At least according to this

What I meant is that all Japanese and Aynu are a mixture of Jomon and Yayoi, and the Jomon element is the strongest in Aynu first, Ryukyuans second, and Mainland Japanese last. So, while they remain close to the Mainland Japanese, Ryukyuan people have also a quite strong affinity with Aynu

ToMach, are you familiar with the horse-rider theory about the origins of Japanese? (That the ancestors of the Yayoi were horse-riders from Siberia that passed through Korea and conquered the Jomon natives.)

I think you make a mistake here : the Horserider theory, first proposed by Egami and modified by Ledyard, is about the invasion from the continent through Korea of a horse-riding tribe who conquered Japan and founded the Yamato state around 4th century AD. Thus they conquered not the Jomon but the Yayoi people, and are not the ancestors of modern Japanese.
But this theory has few supporters nowadays, as it has been heavily criticized from an archeological point of view.

 

[Martialartsnovice]

Konnichiwa ToMach-san,

I see that you are deeply interested in the genetic/linguistical background of modern japanese people. I have also heard of the horserifer theory, and have drawn similar conclusions as to your findings. I have also noticed the skin pigmentation differences in the SE Vs NE Asian peoples. It could be as you mentioned about the Riders conquering the Yaori, but I have heard of Early Russian/Scandinavian migrations to the Siberian plains and the Eastern Asian areas via inland Rivers and sea voyages crossing the southern tip of Africa, and of certain Arabic passages through the Caucuss Mountains. It could have been as I mentioned earlier about Siberian connection. THe Siberia theory as I have heard it called seems to me the most logicla, Because One could ride the Danube down to the Russian border, then travel to the Volga, then travel across land to the Amur river in northern Mongolia/Southern Russia. Then from there it would have been a matter of time before people would have sailed for the Japanese island of Hokkaido or even the others.

But this is just theories that I heard or read, in my world studies I especially have concentrated on the Asian histories, especially dealing with the pre Euorpean contaact and the silk road era in China. Europeans owe the Asian and Middle Eastern scientists for there discoveries. Granted that Europe would have discovered them latter on there own. But it could have taken decades longer then it took there Asian counterparts. Yes the Greeks and the Romans did give us the road, arch, geometry, government, and other things but they didnt create the first ironclad warships, or discover fireworks, or coal, or paper money. For all this I am gratefull.

 

[ToMach]

I have also noticed the skin pigmentation differences in the SE Vs NE Asian peoples.

I don't think that skin color is a reliable evidence, but yes there is a clive between NE Asia mongoloids and SE Asia ones.

It could be as you mentioned about the Riders conquering the Yaori, but I have heard of Early Russian/Scandinavian migrations to the Siberian plains and the Eastern Asian areas via inland Rivers and sea voyages crossing the southern tip of Africa, and of certain Arabic passages through the Caucuss Mountains. It could have been as I mentioned earlier about Siberian connection.THe Siberia theory as I have heard it called seems to me the most logicla, Because One could ride the Danube down to the Russian border, then travel to the Volga, then travel across land to the Amur river in northern Mongolia/Southern Russia. Then from there it would have been a matter of time before people would have sailed for the Japanese island of Hokkaido or even the others.

But we find no archeological or biological trace of a European migration to Eastern Asia nor Japan in prehistoric times.

 

[canadian_kor]

I posted this link on another thread. I think this is the best info on the origins of the Japanese online: http://gias.snu.ac.kr/wthong/publication/paekche/eng/paekch_e.html

I think you make a mistake here : the Horserider theory, first proposed by Egami and modified by Ledyard, is about the invasion from the continent through Korea of a horse-riding tribe who conquered Japan and founded the Yamato state around 4th century AD. Thus they conquered not the Jomon but the Yayoi people, and are not the ancestors of modern Japanese.
But this theory has few supporters nowadays, as it has been heavily criticized from an archeological point of view.

So, what is your theory? Who do you believe the Yayoi were? Were they Tungusic peoples who entered the Japanese islands via Korea or another group that came from South East Asia/Polynesia? Personally, I believe that the Yayoi were a people who had two genetic roots: Tungusic and Mon-Khmer.

 

[ToMach]

I posted this link on another thread. I think this is the best info on the origins of the Japanese online: http://gias.snu.ac.kr/wthong/publication/paekche/eng/paekch_e.html.

As I said on the other thread :
I read the book some time ago, but it has two major flaws :
1. It relies too heavily on the horserider theory, which is rejected by most of the archeologists
2. It has too much Korean nationalistic points of view on the ancient history of Korea and Japan.

So, what is your theory? Who do you believe the Yayoi were? Were they Tungusic peoples who entered the Japanese islands via Korea or another group that came from South East Asia/Polynesia? Personally, I believe that the Yayoi were a people who had two genetic roots: Tungusic and Mon-Khmer

I am not an anthropologist neither an archeologist, so I don't have my own theory, but the consensus is that Jomon people (not a single homogeneous people, possibly different austronesian and/or austroasiatic people) arrived very early from South East Asia. Then arrived the Yayoi Korean-like people from the North East (but we don't know their first homeland), and they mixed more or less with Jomon people. The isolated Ryukyuan people got less mixed than the mainland and remained closer to Jomon, and Aynu are descendants of one of the Jomon people who remained very little mixed. This is what is called the dual model of Japanese ethnogenesis, and is accepted by most of the scholars and scientists in and out Japan.
For Mon-Khmer, what makes you believe that? By the way, at those time, I'm not sure we should speak of Mon-Khmer people, I prefer the broader term "austroasiatic".

 

[canadian_kor]

As I said on the other thread :
I read the book some time ago, but it has two major flaws :
1. It relies too heavily on the horserider theory, which is rejected by most of the archeologists
2. It has too much Korean nationalistic points of view on the ancient history of Korea and Japan.


I am not an anthropologist neither an archeologist, so I don't have my own theory, but the consensus is that Jomon people (not a single homogeneous people, possibly different austronesian and/or austroasiatic people) arrived very early from South East Asia. Then arrived the Yayoi Korean-like people from the North East (but we don't know their first homeland), and they mixed more or less with Jomon people. The isolated Ryukyuan people got less mixed than the mainland and remained closer to Jomon, and Aynu are descendants of one of the Jomon people who remained very little mixed. This is what is called the dual model of Japanese ethnogenesis, and is accepted by most of the scholars and scientists in and out Japan.
For Mon-Khmer, what makes you believe that? By the way, at those time, I'm not sure we should speak of Mon-Khmer people, I prefer the broader term "austroasiatic".

I read somewhere that the modern Japanese has Mon genetic roots from South East Asia (possibly from the Vietnam-Cambodian region). National Geographic Japan once had an issue dealing with the Mon peoples in South East Asia and how similar many of them look to many modern Japanese.

 

[Martialartsnovice]

But the early migrations of the Scandinavians, That I spoke of, happened in the formation of the germanic tribes. Such as the Goths, Huns, and other such tribes. In one respect the skin color couldnt be used, as a link, due to varying exposures to sun.

 

[ToMach]

I read somewhere that the modern Japanese has Mon genetic roots from South East Asia (possibly from the Vietnam-Cambodian region). National Geographic Japan once had an issue dealing with the Mon peoples in South East Asia and how similar many of them look to many modern Japanese.

This may indeed be possible. There are traces of migrations to Japan from Southern East Asia, but the details are not clear, and I don't think that the fact that those people "look similar" to Japanese is a sufficient proof.

But the early migrations of the Scandinavians, That I spoke of, happened in the formation of the germanic tribes. Such as the Goths, Huns, and other such tribes. In one respect the skin color couldnt be used, as a link, due to varying exposures to sun.

There were maybe migrations of Scandinavian people to Germany, I don't know, but aside from the Mongoloids, there was no other massive migration to ancient Japan. And you shouldn't put the Huns along with the Goths as a Germanic tribe.

 

[ToMach]

For people interested in the problem of the origins of the Japanese people, one of the best book is :
Hudson, Mark J. 1999 Ruins of Identity : Ethnogenesis in the Japanese Islands, University of Hawai'i Press
It is a critical synthesis of many studies : anthropology (genetics, virology, skeletons, dentology), archaeology and linguistics. It is not only about Japanese, but also Ryukyuans and Aynu.

 

[Wang]

I am not an anthropologist neither an archeologist, so I don't have my own theory, but the consensus is that Jomon people (not a single homogeneous people, possibly different austronesian and/or austroasiatic people) arrived very early from South East Asia. Then arrived the Yayoi Korean-like people from the North East (but we don't know their first homeland), and they mixed more or less with Jomon people. The isolated Ryukyuan people got less mixed than the mainland and remained closer to Jomon, and Aynu are descendants of one of the Jomon people who remained very little mixed. This is what is called the dual model of Japanese ethnogenesis, and is accepted by most of the scholars and scientists in and out Japan.

I also think this is the most likely theory of the origins of the Japanese.

Now the question is where did the Yayoi come from? The following article was posted a while ago on this forum has found evidence that supports the theory that the origin of the Yayoi people was an area south of the Yangtze.

"People who introduced irrigation techniques to the Japanese archipelago in the Yayoi Period (250 B.C.-300) were believed to have come to Japan either from the Korean Peninsula across the Tsushima Strait, or from northern China across the Yellow Sea.
The latest findings, however, bolster another theory suggesting the origin of the Yayoi people was an area south of the Yangtze, which is believed to be the birthplace of irrigated rice cultivation.
Yamaguchi, a researcher at Japan's National Science Museum, said the researchers compared Yayoi remains found in Yamaguchi and Fukuoka prefectures with those from early Han (202 B.C.-8) in Jiangsu in a three-year project begun in 1996.
The researchers found many similarities between the skulls and limbs of Yayoi people and the Jiangsu remains.
Two Jiangsu skulls showed spots where the front teeth had been pulled, a practice common in Japan in the Yayoi and preceding Jomon Period.
But the most persuasive findings resulted from tests revealing that genetic samples from three of 36 Jiangsu skeletons also matched part of the DNA base arrangements of samples from the Yayoi remains, the scientists said."

http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news111.htm

 

[canadian_kor]

For people interested in the problem of the origins of the Japanese people, one of the best book is :
Hudson, Mark J. 1999 Ruins of Identity : Ethnogenesis in the Japanese Islands, University of Hawai'i Press
It is a critical synthesis of many studies : anthropology (genetics, virology, skeletons, dentology), archaeology and linguistics. It is not only about Japanese, but also Ryukyuans and Aynu.

ToMach, can you give us a brief synopsis of the book?

I also think this is the most likely theory of the origins of the Japanese.

Now the question is where did the Yayoi come from? The following article was posted a while ago on this forum has found evidence that supports the theory that the origin of the Yayoi people was an area south of the Yangtze.

"People who introduced irrigation techniques to the Japanese archipelago in the Yayoi Period (250 B.C.-300) were believed to have come to Japan either from the Korean Peninsula across the Tsushima Strait, or from northern China across the Yellow Sea.
The latest findings, however, bolster another theory suggesting the origin of the Yayoi people was an area south of the Yangtze, which is believed to be the birthplace of irrigated rice cultivation.
Yamaguchi, a researcher at Japan's National Science Museum, said the researchers compared Yayoi remains found in Yamaguchi and Fukuoka prefectures with those from early Han (202 B.C.-8) in Jiangsu in a three-year project begun in 1996.
The researchers found many similarities between the skulls and limbs of Yayoi people and the Jiangsu remains.
Two Jiangsu skulls showed spots where the front teeth had been pulled, a practice common in Japan in the Yayoi and preceding Jomon Period.
But the most persuasive findings resulted from tests revealing that genetic samples from three of 36 Jiangsu skeletons also matched part of the DNA base arrangements of samples from the Yayoi remains, the scientists said."

http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news111.htm

Sorry to burst your bubble Wang, but the Yayoi did not come from eastern China. Scholarship generally agrees that the Yayoi were generally of the Siberian-Tungusic stock (with some mixing with the "original" Koreans) that entered Japan via Korea. That article is flawed, I believe.

Btw, I also read somewhere that the Ainu were not a proto-Caucasoid race, but Austronesian Negroids (like the Australian aborigines). I found this interesting, since some Ainus do have Australian aboriginal facial traits (however, many modern Ainus look virtually mongoloid with some caucasoid traits).

[To anyone reading] Another thing, why are many Japanese so adverse to the idea that their ancestors came from nomadic tribes from Siberia? I found this curious. It's like many of them (even some scholars) like to move away from the idea that Japan had any sort of connections with Siberia.

 

[Wang]

Sorry to burst your bubble Wang, but the Yayoi did not come from eastern China. Scholarship generally agrees that the Yayoi were generally of the Siberian-Tungusic stock (with some mixing with the "original" Koreans) that entered Japan via Korea. That article is flawed, I believe.

Why is this article flawed? What counter evidence do you have?

 

[ToMach]

ToMach, can you give us a brief synopsis of the book?

It supports the dual model of Japanese ethnogenesis, with Modern Japanese coming from a mixture of Jomon people from South Asia with Yayoi people from the Korean peninsula

Sorry to burst your bubble Wang, but the Yayoi did not come from eastern China. Scholarship generally agrees that the Yayoi were generally of the Siberian-Tungusic stock (with some mixing with the "original" Koreans) that entered Japan via Korea. That article is flawed, I believe.

Siberian? I don't think so. For Yayoi, we know that they came from the Korean peninsula, but maybe that before that they were in the Yangtze area, this is a possibility.

Btw, I also read somewhere that the Ainu were not a proto-Caucasoid race, but Austronesian Negroids (like the Australian aborigines). I found this interesting, since some Ainus do have Australian aboriginal facial traits (however, many modern Ainus look virtually mongoloid with some caucasoid traits).

Aynu are definitely NOT Caucasians. They are proto-Mongoloids, but not Negroids

[To anyone reading] Another thing, why are many Japanese so adverse to the idea that their ancestors came from nomadic tribes from Siberia? I found this curious. It's like many of them (even some scholars) like to move away from the idea that Japan had any sort of connections with Siberia.

From Siberia, I don't think so, so let's say "from the continent". And if the Japanese come from mainly Yayoi agricultors, they can not be nomadic tribes. But I don't think they are reticent to the idea of a migration from the continent.

 

[canadian_kor]

It supports the dual model of Japanese ethnogenesis, with Modern Japanese coming from a mixture of Jomon people from South Asia with Yayoi people from the Korean peninsula


Siberian? I don't think so. For Yayoi, we know that they came from the Korean peninsula, but maybe that before that they were in the Yangtze area, this is a possibility.


Aynu are definitely NOT Caucasians. They are proto-Mongoloids, but not Negroids


From Siberia, I don't think so, so let's say "from the continent". And if the Japanese come from mainly Yayoi agricultors, they can not be nomadic tribes. But I don't think they are reticent to the idea of a migration from the continent.

Regarding the ethnography of the Ainu, click here: http://www.kimsoft.com/2004/jp-origin.htm

I don't know how one can say that the Yayoi were descendants of people from eastern China. If the Yayoi came into Japan through Korea, they were more likely to be of Tungusic origin. The Tungusic element arrived in Japan before the Paekche and Koguryo refugees arrived in Japan circa 400 AD.

Also, many of the Japanese may not be reticent of the idea that they came from the Asiatic continent, but they do downplay the idea that the Japanese in general descended from tribes that came from Siberia or Central Asia.

 

[ToMach]

Regarding the ethnography of the Ainu, click here: http://www.kimsoft.com/2004/jp-origin.htm

I prefer not to rely on this rather Korean nationalistic website. When on another page (Who are the Koreans?) you see such crap as :

The first Korean nation, Han-gook (also pronounced whan-gook, 桓國), was established in 7,197 BC and lasted 3,301 years. According to an archive recently discovered (桓檀古記), this nation was made of 12 tribes in the region of Lake Baikal in Siberia. About 5500 years ago, the climate in Siberia began to cool down and people from this nation began to move out in several directions. One group, sumiri (수밀이 須密爾 -- called the Sumerians by the Westerners), migrated to Mesopotamia and established the Ur, Urk, Lagash, Umma and other city states. The Sumerians had dark hair and share a common linguistic origin with the Koreans. Another group crossed the Beringia and moved into America, while a third group moved into Manchuria and the Korean peninsula. A branch of the America-bound group moved to Japan through Saccharin and pushed out Ainus who came from south centuries earlier.
The king of Han-gook dispatched about 3,000 colonists to the area around Mt. Baiktu, which was inhabited by primitive tribes - the Tiger and the Bear tribes. The Han colonists subdued these tribes and established a new nation, Bai-dal (배달국 倍達國, also called 구리 九黎 and 한웅 桓雄 in Chinese chronicles) in 3,898 BC. This new nation occupied much of Manchuria and expanded into China: at its peak, Bai-dal occupied Habook, Hanam, Shantung, Gangso, Ahnwhi, and Julgang provinces of China. Its culture flourished: creation of 'Chinese' characters, codification of the Oriental medicine, advances in farming methods, and other innovations commonly attributed to the Chinese. The Bai-dal kingdom lasted 1565 years under 18 kings.
Go-Chosun (also called Dangun Chosun) followed Bai-dal in 2333 BC and lasted 2096 years. It was the most powerful nation in Asia of its era but it is rarely mentioned in history books because Japanese and Chinese historians shy away from glorifying the Korean people.

I just cannot considere anything written there as serious.
By the way, the source quoted for "Ainus descended from the Jomon people who inhabited the Japanese island. The Jomon people belonged to the Negroid coastal people of the Sundaland during the last Ice Age" seems also very unreliable to me. And there are many things wrong in the rest of the article.

I don't know how one can say that the Yayoi were descendants of people from eastern China. If the Yayoi came into Japan through Korea, they were more likely to be of Tungusic origin. The Tungusic element arrived in Japan before the Paekche and Koguryo refugees arrived in Japan circa 400 AD.

But what if those Tungusic people were originally from that region of China?

Also, many of the Japanese may not be reticent of the idea that they came from the Asiatic continent, but they do downplay the idea that the Japanese in general descended from tribes that came from Siberia or Central Asia.

Again I don't think this is true anymore. Why do you have this impression?

 

[ippolito]

A question Maciamo
When I was last year in Tokyo I saw many girls with boots (it was winter)
that were walking with difficulties....the same problem I have not seen in Korea..
is the seisan position that make some problems to jp women?

 

[TuskCracker]

Malaysians

I lived in Malaysia. They are descendants of Polynesians.