User talk:85.179.166.242

There is a problem with your logic.

1) You say he was 100% Mongolian origin? there is no absolute proof for that, he was most likely of Turkic origin but this is still contested, the only thing we know he came from the steppe and is not entirely sure his ancestor was Xiongnu.

2) Look carefully again. Mongolia is definitely in East Asia geographically not in Central Asia. Also if we look at clearly 95% of Mongolia's population lives in the eastern part of the Mongolia's country which is far much closer to Manchuria, North China, North Korea than to Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan.

3) You are right that Attila would have been Central Asian, and is most likely true he would have looked like Mongol or Northern Turkic. However because the word "central Asian" also includes the southern portion of central Asia Turkic countries and ethnic groups like Turkmens, Uzbeks, Uyghurs who are obviously much more mix race and Caucasian in appearance we could not include that term. Central Asian is not the right word described what attila would have looked like if he was described with characteristics that are similar between East Asian and the Central Asians like Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russian Far East especially Buryats, Yakut. And if we compare these so called Central Asian groups (as you call it ) with East Asian groups vs Uzbeks, Uyghurs and Turkmen, we all already know Kazakhs, Kyrgyz definitely look far more closer to east Asian. So the word "east Asian" is used to encompass appearances with Mongoloid appearance. The same logic when apply with North Africa and South Africa, North Africa is clearly predominately Caucasoid and some mix, south Africa is Black with few mixes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritclaymore (talk • contribs) 17:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)