Should Eastern Indonesia(Wallacea) even been considered Southeast Asia?

Just for contrast,look at Jackie Chan in East Timor:

[IMG] [/IMG]

[IMG] [/IMG]

[IMG] [/IMG]

Are they really the same "race"?Thats eye opening to see a Mongoloid man stick out so much in what is supposedly also a "Southeast Asian" country (East Timor).

_________

Masaman,the Youtube Anthropoligist finally actually include Eastern "Indonesia" in Oceania where it rightly belongs!

[IMG] [/IMG]

[url] https://www.transitionsabroad.com/listings/travel/articles/travel-in-indonesia-footsteps-alfred-wallace.shtml [/url]

Originally Posted by Prau123
Aren't Wallaceans a mixture of brown Austronesians and/or brown Austro-Asiatics with Papuan on Papuan related groups?

I consider Wallacea to be a transitional zone between Southeast Asia and Oceania, but it could go either way as part of Southeast Asia or Oceania, it's like flipping a coin. In truth, Southeast Asia is just a political term. Hinduism, Buddhism, and to a lesser extent Confucianism do not define what it means to be Southeast Asian. They were in fact introduced into Southeast Asia as you know, and although it's become a fabric of the modern and classical face of many parts of Southeast Asia, it should not be used to segregate Southeast Asia from Oceania which as you know has a long history of interaction and commonality, the Austronesian languages is just one of many reasons why the two regions are closely connected. Sago and taro are eaten in Southeast Asia (at least in the Philippines, e.g. sago't gulaman, ginataan (contains sago and taro), halo-halo (contains sago), some stews are cooked with taro)). Sago and taro may not be mainstays like they are in Wallacea, but I've read somewhere that sago was an important crop to brown Austronesians and Austro-Asiatics prior to rice domestication (if I remember correctly). Cassava is a New World crop, and although it's utilized more in Wallacea, there is cassava cake in the Philippines. I'm not sure why breadfruit is not used in Southeast Asia and in the Philippines, it could be because it doesn't grow very well there. But then again durian is symbolic of Southeast Asia, but it doesn't grow in the Visayas or Luzon region of the Philippines or even in the northern parts of Mainland Southeast Asia, but Visayans, Luzonians, and Northern Mainland Southeast Asians are all Southeast Asians.

The Komodo dragon is unique to Wallacea, but it's just a monitor lizard, and monitor lizards are found from Australia to Southeast Asia and Southern China, to India, the Middle East and Africa. The Philippines has even a 5 foot long monitor lizard called Gray's Monitor. Marsupials use to inhabit much of the world, and they've been pushed out by other mammals. There are no kangaroos west of Wallacea, so you got me there.

As mentioned earlier, Southeast Asia is a political term or a geographical term, but it's also a modern term. I don't think classical or ancient Southeast Asians necessarily defined a region as Southeast Asia. I'm not sure that even pre-Hispanic Filipinos saw the Philippine islands as one regional or political unit. Terms such as "Southeast Asia" have to be taught to Southeast Asians in order for them to understand what Southeast Asia is, although, one could understand why a region would be defined that way based upon phenotype, religion, cuisine, and etc., but it would be a mistake, in my opinion, to segregate it completely from Wallacea and Micronesia and Polynesia, and even parts of New Guinea. I know you weren't trying to segregate Wallacea completely from the rest of Southeast Asia, but that you just wanted to show that it's more in common with Oceania, and that I can probably agree with you. But some Wallaceans can pass for Southeast Asians especially when they are young, the same with Polynesians.

I can agree with what you said.But on the other hand,many young Wallaceans actually overlap with Australian Aboriginals and Papuans,especially like Timorese:

[IMG] [/IMG]

[IMG] [/IMG]

[IMG] [/IMG]

Originally Posted by Prau123
It's interesting how the Austro-Asiatic influences are found in different pockets of Indonesia. The Acheh obviously have it because they are from Southern Vietnam. The Moken occupy or are nearby former Austro-Asiatic regions. But the Dayak, Javanese, and Sundanese may have received Austro-Asiatic influences from long ago, who knows. I guess the Austronesian expansion was very pervasive in its spread across Indonesia. I would imagine Austro-Asiatic speakers had settled in Western Indonesia prior to arrival of the Austronesians especially since the Austro-Asiatics settled well into Mainland Southeast Asia and India.

So then it looks like we can all agree to disagree that Indonesia is actually an extremely diverse non Nation,a set of different racial peoples united from Dutch Colonialism?Just like Yugoslavia was a non nation full of different warring ethnic groups..

Originally Posted by Prau123
I agree with you that Southeast Asia is a geopolitical unit. And that's why I have no problem including New Guinea (the whole island, and not just its western part) as part of Southeast Asia. Papua New Guinea should also be a full member of ASEAN. The term Oceania which includes Australia, Papua New Guinea, Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia never fully made sense to me. What does the dry desert of the Outback of Australia have to do with the pristine blue waters of Bora Bora?

PS. Why is both Papua New Guinea and even East Timor routinely blocked and rejected from joining ASEAN??Its not something like,idk,RACISM is it??

come back saenaha us waiting for you