SRIWIJAYA asal dari Thailand.

malaysian wrote:

lihat erti indo di bwh pula:
it has nothing to do with whites mixing with Indians, nor with Indonesia. It refers to a wide group of people from south Asia and non-semitic peoples of the Middle East. Let me explain:
Indo means pertaining to "India".

malaysian wrote:

<quoted text>
maaf sy tak tahu pasal gelaran jawi di msia. bkn sy seorang saja yg tak tahu kebanyakannya pun tak tahu atau kurang tahu cuma anda seorang saja yg berkoar2 pasal jawi.
utusan jawi tak ada tapi utusan melayu ada iaitu akhbar bertulisan jawi. anda bkn org msia kan,'Kenapa di Msia, nama Jawi kita tinggalkan jauh2' kenapa anda mengaku 'kita' tinggalkan nama jawi padahal 'kita' tak memanggil diri 'kita' jawi.
yg sy baca org selatan thai tak sebut jawi tetapi yawi. dan bila sy google sy dapati mereka menggelar diri mereka melayu spt di laman2 web mereka.

malaysian wrote:

<quoted text>
maaf sy tak tahu pasal gelaran jawi di msia. bkn sy seorang saja yg tak tahu kebanyakannya pun tak tahu atau kurang tahu cuma anda seorang saja yg berkoar2 pasal jawi.
utusan jawi tak ada tapi utusan melayu ada iaitu akhbar bertulisan jawi. anda bkn org msia kan,'Kenapa di Msia, nama Jawi kita tinggalkan jauh2' kenapa anda mengaku 'kita' tinggalkan nama jawi padahal 'kita' tak memanggil diri 'kita' jawi.
yg sy baca org selatan thai tak sebut jawi tetapi yawi. dan bila sy google sy dapati mereka menggelar diri mereka melayu spt di laman2 web mereka.

Islah wrote:

<quoted text>
First of all I wouldn't buy entirely any media's exposition of terms as there will always be some misunderstandings or confusion on the part of the reporter or editor. Further, I must say I haven't seen Zafarina's original article but my sense is that the researcher may be trying to compare the genetic structure of the various Malay sub-ethnic groups within the Malay population and across population in reference to a particular genetic makeup as the benchmark or outgroup. We know in Malaysia the Malay is a generic term which comprises mainly Javans, Bugis, Minang, Aceh, Kelantanese Malay, etc. It is reasonable to consider the Kelantanese Malay (as opposed to Johorian or Selangorian Malay) as a separate sub-ethnic of the Malays due to some geo-historical factors. One may disagree, however, with the Malay tag attached to each of the so-called sub-ethnic groups, but notice that the Malay tag being generic in nature can't go alone, it has to be qualified with a specific ethnic group. My main concern is what benchmark or outgroup the researcher was considering. If the intent was to identify which sub-ethnic groups were the earlier comers to Malaysia, then the outgroup most likely will be the genetic variants of some African tribes or their proxies. However, controversies may arise if the intent was to ascertain which Malay sub-ethnic groups are the purest or most original Malay as related by Rentap in one of his posts. The choice of outgroup for such a study will be highly debatable. Should it be from the Melayu Asli variants, some tribes in South Sumatera, South China, Borneo or Taiwan? This has been my main contention in my earlier replies to you - I have wanted to know the operational definition of the various subjective qualifiers (i.e., most original, most pure of Malays). I still believe if the population and outgroup are well defined and the samples are consistent and an unbiased, regardless of what name tags are being used, one can always do a mapping of the sample tags with that of his/hers and provide his/her own objective views of whatever findings and policy implications the said researcher may offer.

Maja wrote:

<quoted text>
Ahh ... we discussing 2 differnt thing here ..
You're still questioning the validity of Zafarina's research such as the oldest and the purest Melayu and the methodology of Zafarina to reach that conclusions.
On the other hand I'm not questioning the validity of Zafarina's research, cause as Genetic Experts I belived she really knows what she's doing. I'm more concerned with the terminology she used because she used bias terminology that can mislead the audience.
I believed there's nothing wrong on her research, for me "the oldest and purest Melayu conclusion" is just the result of her bias terminology, at least the terminology she used when she published her research to the press.
Just like you said there will always be some misunderstandings or confusion on the part of the reporter or editor - the more bias terminology you used the more confusion and misunderstang on the part of the reporter or editor.
And it's easily manipulated for political purposes ..

Maja wrote:

<quoted text>
Memang susah juga kalau dana penelitian dari pemerintah, hasil penelitian tentu akan bias karna mendapat pressure dari pemberi dana.
Andaya sempat menyebutkan adanya pressure politik dalam penelitian seperti ini. Bahkan Andaya sampai menyebutkan Benjamin adalah salah satu Peneliti yg cukup berani mengatakan Kedah didirikan oleh Mon-Khmers Speakers.
Dengan sistem politik Kebangsaan berdasarkan Ras, tentunya sangat penting arti dominasi Ras demi rasa Nasionalism di Malaysia - sehingga seperti yg anda katakan semua harus dimelayusentriskan.. Tapi sangat disayangkan jika sampai masuk ke ranah Keilmuan - seperti sejarah ini.
Yup .. jika sudah ada penelitian mtDNA jika dilanjutkan dgn penelitian Y-DNA hasilnya akan semakin lengkap. Kebanyakan penelitian menggunakan pendekatan Y-DNA, mengapa Zafarina menggunakan mtDNA mungkin anda tau ?

Islah wrote:

<quoted text>
I have never stated that I disagreed with her methodology and results. I did not even dispute her use of terminology. I only wanted to know what benchmark/outgroup she was using to ascertain that the Kelantanese Malays were the purest form (as mentioned by Rentap) of Malays. If I have access to her full paper that will be the part that interests me most. I am not very convinced that the use of any terminology can be manipulated without limit for any purpose. We know that findings of any scientific research will be subject to peer reviews to ensure credibility.

Islah wrote:

<quoted text>
I have never stated that I disagreed with her methodology and results. I did not even dispute her use of terminology. I only wanted to know what benchmark/outgroup she was using to ascertain that the Kelantanese Malays were the purest form (as mentioned by Rentap) of Malays. If I have access to her full paper that will be the part that interests me most. I am not very convinced that the use of any terminology can be manipulated without limit for any purpose. We know that findings of any scientific research will be subject to peer reviews to ensure credibility.

Pahlawan Rentap wrote:

<quoted text>
Aslian seperti etnis Semang (Bateq,Jahai,Kensiu, Kintaq etc ) dan Senoi (Chewong,Ja Hut, Semai etc ) adalah Mon-Khmers Speakers dan wilayah penyebarannya sampai meliputi wilayah Utara Malaysia hingga Pahang. Mereka bukannya Melayu dan tinggal dalam pendalaman..Mereka di katakan ribuan tahun lebih awal ,,,(Melayu sekitar 2000 tahun aja)...
Manakala Melayu tinggal lebih kepada pantai sesuai dengan krateristik melayu yang maritim.Berbahasa melayu dan berbudaya melayu....
Jestru itu Melayu Malaysia tidak pernah ada mon speakears kecuali penduduk asli yang tinggal dalam pendalaman....

malaypower wrote:

<quoted text>bro tumpang tanya, apa beza melayu proto dgn melayu deutro?

malaysian wrote:

siapa yg bisa bantah jawa asalnya kaleng angkat tangan?!

NOSTRADAMUS wrote:

<quoted text>
2 negara ini Thailand dan Malingsia, emang sudah jadi cercaan dan tertawaan di berbagai forum diskusi international bro,karena byk forumer2 mereka bodoh2 dengan memakai rumusan ahli2 dalam negri mereka dan source2 negara mereka saja.
Mereka bangsa bingung identity ,karena Nenek Moyang mereka Ga jelas alias Mereka Bangsa Haram (keturunan anak gampang)di Asia tenggara.
Kamu tahukan kalo anak haram atau anak kampang itu ga jelas statusnya serta asal sejarah orang tuanya apalagi nenek moyangnya bla...bla.....

Islah wrote:

<quoted text>
Etimologi Jawi di Semenanjung terkait dengan pengaruh Jawa terutama lewat Sailendra, Majapahit dan Demak.
Gelar Jawa/Jawi semulanya muncul dari dampak penguasaan Sailendra terhadap Chenla di Indochina/utara Semenanjung dan juga pengaruh Jayawarman II dan Javaka. Sehinggakan mereka yg datang dari Semenanjung diberi gelar (bergelar) Jva (bhs Champa) dan Chva (bhs Khmer). Sehingga hari ini gelar ini masih digunakan di Cambodia dan Patani.
Islam berkembang pesat di Nusantara setelah munculnya Demak. Namun Demak masih membawa pengaruh Jawa/Jawi. Justru, era ini bhs Jawi yg merupakan campuran bhs Melayu, Jawa, Arab dan Parsi berserta aksara Jawi(aksara Pegun/Arab Gundul) berkembang luas. Penulis Hamzah Fansuri (buku Sharab Al-Asyikin) di abad 17 mencatatkan bahasa yg digunakan di utara Pasai ialah Bhs Jawi.
Sehingga pertengahan abad 19, nama Jawi diguna secara generik sebagai referens umat Nusantara tanpa membedakan mana2 etnis. Hanya Penjajah portugis yg mula membedakan nama bagi etnis Jawa (Jaos)dan etnis2 lain.
Penulis2 barat seperti Marsden, Logan dan Crawford di pertengahan abad 19 mencatatkan Jawi adalah gelar resmi untuk orang2 Melayu di Semenanjung dan bahasa mereka adalah bhs Jawi.
Di Semenanjung, nama Melayu mula sinonim dgn Jawi sebagai istilah generik setelah berkembangnya bhs Melayu sebagai lingua franca dan sirnanya identitas Melayu dengan keturunan raja2 Melaka. Di era kerajaan Melaka kata Melayu mereferens khas kerabat dan keturunan raja2 Melaka yg semulanya dari Melayu/Palembang sedangkan warga Melayu lain dikenali sebagai orang Melaka.

malaypower wrote:

<quoted text>bro tumpang tanya, apa beza melayu proto dgn melayu deutro?

Pahlawan Rentap wrote:

<quoted text>
*** Terbukti kebenaran wikipedia
Dari bahasa mu yang suka menghina jelaslah kenapa peribahasa ini di cipta.....
Peribahasa seperti janji keling misalnya digunakan oleh masyarakat berbahasa Melayu untuk merujuk kepada orang yang suka berbohong, memberi kenyataan yang bercanggah dan mereka yang tidak tetap pendirian.
Dalam masyarakat Cina, perkataan keling-a (Hokkien; &#21513;&#23527;&# 20180;; POJ: kiet-lêng-á), keling kwai (Kantonis; &#21513;&#23527;&# 39740;; Yale: git-lìhng-gwái), dan keling-kia (Teochew) selalu digunakan di Malaysia dan Singapura. Perkataan-perkataan ini boleh digunakan dalam niat baik atau tidak. Dalam suku Hokkien dan Teachew tambahan -a dan -kia selalunya merujuk kepada suku bukan Cina dan dalam Kantonis, istilah kwai bermaksud "hantu" atau "syaitan" dan digunakan juga untuk etnik bukan Cina.

Pahlawan Rentap wrote:

<quoted text>
I can see your point...but i don't think the indonesian people would ever believe if we are called jawi/java...they probably run amok at the streets and called us trying to be called jawa/jawi in order to steal/maling their culture....too many nonsense and childish antics shown by the indonesians lately for rationalization to prevail.