Preface to the text: I apologize for the long hiatus. These past few months have been extremely hectic and the 2 part series I started working on was a bit larger than I originally anticipate, and I am proud to present the first portion. I know it’s not the best of writing and that I commit several stylistic fallacies but hey, this isn’t school and for once I get to write whatever I damn please in whenever way I wish. So I hope you all enjoy this piece. If you have any comments or disagreements, leave them in the comment box! Have fun, yall.
There is virtually no dispute amongst modern scholars that the Americas were originally inhabited by the people who crossed the great land-bridge when Alaska and Russia were still connected. If then, the American Indian nations did come from East Asia, the logical conclusion would then be that the Amerindians are descendents of the oriental peoples. This is not a new idea, for soon after the Spaniards arrived in the new word, “a learned Jesuit, Father Jose de Acosta, read the scanty evidence available 400 years ago and announced that the American Indian must be of Asiatic origin. Scholars have agreed with him ever since. But the good padre did not know how the immigrants came; ‘by shipwreck and tempest of weather’ he guessed. Now we know better: They merely walked across the Bering Strait” (National Geographic, The World of the American Indian, 29). Fast forward to the 1800’s, James Fenimoore Cooper made several keen observations in the forward of the book that immortalized him, The Last of the Mohicans:
It is generally believed that the Aborigines of the American continent have an Asiatic origin. There are many physical as well as moral fact which corroborate this opinion, and some few that would seem to weigh against it. The color of the Indian, the writer believes [Cooper], is peculiar to himself, and while his cheek-bones have a very striking indication of a Tartar origin, his eyes have not. Climate may have had great influence on the former, but it is difficult to see how it can have produced the substantial difference which exists in the latter. The imagery of the Indian, both in his poetry and in his oratory, is oriental; chastened, and perhaps improved, by the limited range of his practical knowledge. He draws his metaphors from the clouds, the seasons, the birds, the beasts, and the vegetable world. In this, perhaps, he does no more than any other energetic and imaginative race would do, being compelled to set bound to fancy by experience; but the North American Indian clothes his ideas in a dress which is different from that of the African, and is oriental in itself. His language has the richness and sententious fullness of the Chinese. He will express a phrase in a word, and he will qualify the meaning of an entire sentence by a syllable; he will even convey different significations by the simplest inflections of the voice. (Cooper 9-10)
The observations that Cooper makes are of two types: linguistic and cultural. As a mixed individual of Chinese and Amerindian ancestry I can testify that Cooper’s assertions are accurate. Chinese, unlike most other languages, is tonetic and the meaning of a word can change drastically by a mere inflection of the voice. The very nature of the language itself is heavily rooted in naturalistic origins. The names of people are directly taken from the natural world or reflect some form of philosophical ideal (or often times a blend of the two). It is the same with the Amerindians with names like “Sitting Bull”, “Crazy Horse”, etc.
Culturally speaking, the Chinese and the Amerindians are more similar than one would initially expect. Both cultures are highly concerned with the idea of unifying the individual with the higher natural order. Russell Means states in his autobiographical work, “Where White Men Fear to Tread”:
Grandpa John also taught me to feel things, to instill wisdom instead of merely knowledge. In that way, during my childhood, I came to feel the Indian’s love for our grandmother earth. In the linear, mathematical way of the Eurocentric male society that has dominated America for so long, you are expected to know things, to believe things. Knowing and believing are all in your head – there is nothing in your heart (means 14).
Similarly, this view is held very strongly in classical Chinese thought, as is exemplified in the Dao De Jing, Lao zi’s magnum opus and the foundation of Daoist philosophy. It praises self-knowledge and criticizes rational understanding. “Banish wisdom, discard knowledge, And the people will be benefited a hundredfold (chap. 33, tr. Waley). Knowledge, like desire, should be diminished:
Knowing others is wisdom;
Knowing the self is enlightenment.
Mastering others requires force;
Mastering the self requires strength;
He who knows he has enough is rich.
Perseverance is a sign of will power.
He who stays where he is endures.
To die but not to perish is to be eternally present. (chap. 33, tr. Feng and English).
The emphasis on the beginnings of society and philosophical vacuity lends itself greatly to the cultural similarities between the Chinese and the Amerindians. Just as Indians were taught that if the green things or the four legged-creatures or the winged creatures or the creatures that swim or crawl were taken from the earth, there would be no life, but if man were taken away, life would flourish; so the Chinese were taught to seek the natural state of man and to unify oneself with the Dao. In general, the way in which the Chinese and Amerindians approach life are extremely similar, ranging from philosophical beliefs to firm family ties. To oversimplify, the Chinese developed and expounded upon what the Indians intuitively knew, which is why there is very little contradiction between the two cultures.
Depending on how much currency is given to the Menzies theory, one could perhaps argue the connection between the Chinese and American Indians is even closer. For those who are unfamiliar with Gavin Menzies and his work, he is a British scholar who wrote a book called “1421: The Year China Discovered America”. The rudimentary thrust of the theory is that all the European explorers who discovered the new world had maps of where they were going. That being said, who then wrote the maps? The only viable candidate during that era were the Chinese, who were during that time sending out the great expedition fleets under the Ming dynasty banner. There are significant pieces of archeological evidence that seem to support the theory that the Chinese fleets founded several colonies in the new world due to various maritime mishaps. Over time, when the fleets never returned to bring the colonists home, the Chinese settlers integrated with the local Indian tribes, thereby establishing an even closer connection between the Indian nations and the Chinese civilization.
But even in complete disregard of the Menzies theory, one has but to look at the American Indians to see that they are of Oriental origin. With the understanding that one does not have to be of the Han tribe in order to be Chinese (which will be discussed in the next article), the claim that the Indians are in fact Chinese is not wholly unfounded.
The following is a picture of a man of the Sioux nations

The physical similarities between this man and the following are undeniable.
This man below is a member of the Chinese Han tribe.

And this man is a member of the Chinese Tibetian tribe.

In conclusion, it is hereby evident that the American Indians are indeed of oriental origin and in fact are ethnically and culturally the same as (although not wholly identical) the Chinese.