Nurizone wrote:@Black Man:
I know I'm resurrecting an old thread, but what do you mean Korean phenotypes are "extreme"? You mean Koreans have extremely mongoloid features? Is that what you're saying?
Thanks for the hint, Nurizone.
Yes, myth based on the observation of people from one or two occupational groups is actually something like "Korean phenotypes tend to be relatively extreme" or "extremely mongoloid" etc.
Just a few days ago I was trying to deconstruct the very same myth at http://www.anthropedia.science/single/? ... t=10037963
in this sentence:
wrote:(...) maybe there is no "Tungid component" in the southern Korean population but only a mix of "Palaeoasiatic" and "Manchurian" types which might superficially resemble a minority among northern Tungusic-speaking people.
That said, the reason for which children look like their parents can be what researchers call "assortative mating"
in literature. I.e., the Korean parent or relatives of the non-Korean parent might have features similar to those of the Korean parent. Back then, when I posted on assortative mating, I ignored part of the logical consequences of this ethological pattern simply because I didn't consider it in all kinds of contexts. So my post above must have looked like an atavism. If you come similarly outdated posts, just mention them. We'll correct or delete them.
I just edited the first post above. The statement I removed was:
wrote:Since Korean phenotypes tend to be relatively extreme (even in comparison with Siberian phenotypes), Korean hybrid looks might imply inheritance patterns relatively well. You may add some more links to photos, descriptions or criticise this statement.
More generally, when reviewing such older posts, I noticed the notorious presence of ethnologisms which probably stem from people having read certain outdated statements from ethnological literature. Unexperienced and narrow-minded ethnologists and even more so laymen who are into ethnology typically get into cycles of "othering" from which they will possibly never escape. As you can see above, I myself even had access to better literature but didn't change my mind for quite a while. The reason for this was the lack of post-post-colonial perspectives
. One has to consider information from colonial and postcolonial periods as being biased for certain reasons.
Last but not least, Korean American(?) netizens themselves occasionally perpetuated myths from these particular periods apparently without noticing that this was detrimental to their own reputations as forumites and members of an ethnic group. Claiming to be "extreme" seems to have had the vibe of claiming to be "more pure-bred", "more authentic" etc than others and was probably part of general ethno-nationalistic idealisms which might have flourished under the special historical circumstances in 20th century Korea.
So the key to rational anthropology-related discussions is IMO neither updated ethnological literature per se nor subjective experience in real life nor ancestry per se but increased levels of inter-disciplinary dialogues. Knowledge should get confirmed by different people from different disciplines.