From ABC News, December 4, 2005
Dog Laughter

Researchers at the Spokane County Regional Animal Protection Service in Washington state say sometimes a bark is just a bark -- but a long, loud panting sound has real meaning. They say the long, loud pant is the sound of a dog laughing, and it has a direct impact on the behavior of other dogs.

"What we found is that it had a calming or soothing effect on the dogs," said Patricia Simonet, an animal behaviorist in Spokane who has studied everything from hamster culture to elephant self-recognition. "Now, we actually really weren't expecting that."

Nancy Hill, director of Spokane County Animal Protection, admits she was skeptical at first that this noise would affect the other dogs.
"I thought: Laughing dogs?" Hill said. "A sound that we're gonna isolate and play in the shelter? I was a real skeptic … until we played the recording here at the shelter."

When they played the sound of a dog panting over the loudspeaker, the gaggle of dogs at the shelter kept right on barking. But when they played the dog version of laughing, all 15 barking dogs went quiet within about a minute. "It was a night-and-day difference," Hill said. "It was absolutely phenomenal." Officials say it works every time, and researchers across the country are taking note.

"The laughing sound that they make is something that was not even considered a vocalization until this study was done," Simonet said. Those who study dog behavior have varying opinions about exactly what Patricia Simonet's "dog laughing" sound really is. What they do agree on, however, is that to other dogs, it is at least a sound worth keeping quiet to listen to.


I have noticed this different sound when my dog would run up to greet me and when two dogs are playing. It never occurred to me that it could be an expression of emotion. There is a whole world of animal sounds and behaviors that psychologists are studying now, which show animal intelligence and communication. I always pay attention to those studies whenever I see them. To me, human intelligence is a matter of gradations and developments from earlier species of mammals, undoubtedly going back to the earliest mammals. We should be more humble about our achievements. We should at the very least treat animals with gentleness and appreciation. They deserve that.

Malaysian People And History

The following information is compiled from four Wikipedia articles and two scientific articles on DNA studies of the Aboriginal populations in Malaysia and Australia, which are thought to be related.

I found in looking at the origination of page views of my other blog “A Day At A Time” that about 40 a day of the page views were coming from Malaysia, along with a diverse group of other countries. I began to want to know more about the Malaysian people, out of curiosity.

I was fascinated when I found how ancient one group was, none other than the first Homo Sapiens group to leave Africa, finally settling in Australia around 50,000 BP from Malaysia. Some of that information is included below, along with a summary of the modern day population and cultural elements. I hope you enjoy reading it.


From Wikipedia Malaysian Indians

Demographics:
As of the 2010 census, the population of Malaysia was 28,334,135,[7] making it the 42nd most populated country. The population of Malaysia consists of many ethnic groups. In 2010, Malaysian citizens, of which bumiputera were 67.4%, made up 91.8% of the population.[156] According to constitutional definition, Malays are Muslims who practice Malay customs and culture. They play a dominant role politically.[157] Bumiputera status is also accorded to certain non-Malay indigenous peoples, including ethnic Thais, Khmers, Chams and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak. Non-Malay bumiputera make up more than half of Sarawak's population and over two thirds of Sabah's population.[2] There also exist aboriginal groups in much smaller numbers on the peninsula, where they are collectively known as the Orang Asli.[158] Laws over who gets bumiputera status vary between states.[159

Other minorities who lack bumiputera status make up a large amount of the population. 24.6 per cent of the population are of Chinese descent, while those of Indian descent comprise 7.3 per cent of the population.[156] The Chinese have historically been dominant in the business and commerce community, and form a plurality of the population of Penang. Indians began migrating to Malaysia in the early 19th century.[160] The majority of the Indian community are Tamils.[161

Malaysian citizenship is not automatically granted to those born in Malaysia, but is granted to a child born of two Malaysian parents outside Malaysia. Dual citizenship is not permitted.[162] Citizenship in the states of Sabah and Sarawak in Malaysian Borneo are distinct from citizenship in Peninsular Malaysia for immigration purposes. Every citizen is issued a biometric smart chip identity card known as MyKad at the age of 12, and must carry the card at all times.[163]

The education system features a non-compulsory kindergarten education followed by six years of compulsory primary education, and five years of optional secondary education.[164] Schools in the primary education system are divided into two categories: national primary schools, which teach in Malay, and vernacular schools, which teach in Chinese or Tamil.[165] Secondary education is conducted for five years. In the final year of secondary education, students sit for the Malaysian Certificate of Education examination.[166] Since the introduction of the matriculation programme in 1999, students who completed the 12-month programme in matriculation colleges can enroll in local universities. However, in the matriculation system, only 10 per cent of places are open to non-bumiputera students.[167]

The Malaysian constitution guarantees freedom of religion while making Islam the state religion.[179] According to the Population and Housing Census 2010 figures, ethnicity and religious beliefs correlate highly. Approximately 61.3% of the population practice Islam, 19.8% practice Buddhism, 9.2% Christianity, 6.3% Hinduism and 1.3% practice Confucianism, Taoism and other traditional Chinese religions. 0.7% declared no religion and the remaining 1.4% practised other religions or did not provide any information.[7] Sunnis form the majority with non-denominational Muslims being the second largest group of Muslims at 18%.[180]

All ethnic Malays are considered Muslim by law of the Constitution.[179] Statistics from the 2010 Census indicate that 83.6% of the Chinese population identify as Buddhist, with significant numbers of adherents following Taoism (3.4%) and Christianity (11.1%), along with small Hui-Muslim populations in areas like Penang. The majority of the Indian population follow Hinduism (86.2%), with a significant minority identifying as Christians (6.0%) or Muslims (4.1%). Christianity is the predominant religion of the non-Malay bumiputera community (46.5%) with an additional 40.4% identifying as Muslims.[7]

Muslims are obliged to follow the decisions of Syariah courts in matters concerning their religion. The Islamic judges are expected to follow the Shafi`i legal school of Islam, which is the main madh'hab of Malaysia.[181] The jurisdiction of Shariah courts is limited to Muslims in matters such as marriage, inheritance, divorce, apostasy, religious conversion, and custody among others. No other criminal or civil offences are under the jurisdiction of the Shariah courts, which have a similar hierarchy to the Civil Courts. Despite being the supreme courts of the land, the Civil Courts do not hear matters related to Islamic practices.[182]

Malaysia has a multi-ethnic, multicultural, and multilingual society. The original culture of the area stemmed from indigenous tribes that inhabited it, along with the Malays who later moved there. Substantial influence exists from Chinese and Indian culture, dating back to when foreign trade began. Other cultural influences include the Persian, Arabic, and British cultures. Due to the structure of the government, coupled with the social contract theory, there has been minimal cultural assimilation of ethnic minorities.[197]

In 1971, the government created a "National Cultural Policy", defining Malaysian culture. It stated that Malaysian culture must be based on the culture of the indigenous peoples of Malaysia, that it may incorporate suitable elements from other cultures, and that Islam must play a part in it.[198] It also promoted the Malay language above others.[199] This government intervention into culture has caused resentment among non-Malays who feel their cultural freedom was lessened. Both Chinese and Indian associations have submitted memorandums to the government, accusing it of formulating an undemocratic culture policy.[198]

Some cultural disputes exist between Malaysia and neighbouring countries, notably Indonesia. The two countries have a similar cultural heritage, sharing many traditions and items. However, disputes have arisen over things ranging from culinary dishes to Malaysia's national anthem. Strong feelings exist in Indonesia about protecting their national heritage.[200] The Malaysian government and the Indonesian government have met to defuse some of the tensions resulting from the overlaps in culture.[201] Feelings are not as strong in Malaysia, where most recognise that many cultural values are shared.[200]

Traditional Malaysian art was mainly centred around the areas of carving, weaving, and silversmithing.[202] Traditional art ranges from handwoven baskets from rural areas to the silverwork of the Malay courts. Common artworks included ornamental kris, beetle nut sets, and woven batik and songket fabrics. Indigenous East Malaysians are known for their wooden masks.[93] Each ethnic group have distinct performing arts, with little overlap between them. However, Malay art does show some North Indian influence due to the historical influence of India.[203]

Traditional Malay music and performing arts appear to have originated in the Kelantan-Pattani region with influences from India, China, Thailand and Indonesia. The music is based around percussion instruments,[203] the most important of which is the gendang (drum). There are at least 14 types of traditional drums.[204] Drums and other traditional percussion instruments and are often made from natural materials.[204] Music is traditionally used for storytelling, celebrating life-cycle events, and occasions such as a harvest.[203] It was once used as a form of long-distance communication.[204] In East Malaysia, gong-based musical ensembles such as agung and kulintang are commonly used in ceremonies such as funerals and weddings.[205] These ensembles are also common in neighbouring regions such as in the southern Philippines, Kalimantan in Indonesia, and Brunei.[205]

Malaysia has a strong oral tradition that has existed since before the arrival of writing, and continues today. Each of the Malay Sultanates created their own literary tradition, influenced by pre-existing oral stories and by the stories that came with Islam.[206] The first Malay literature was in the Arabic script. The earliest known Malay writing is on the Terengganu stone, made in 1303.[93] Chinese and Indian literature became common as the numbers of speakers increased in Malaysia, and locally produced works based in languages from those areas began to be produced in the 19th century.[206] English has also become a common literary language.[93] In 1971, the government took the step of defining the literature of different languages. Literature written in Malay was called "the national literature of Malaysia", literature in other bumiputera languages was called "regional literature", while literature in other languages was called "sectional literature".[199] Malay poetry is highly developed, and uses many forms. The Hikayat form is popular, and the pantun has spread from Malay to other languages.[206]

Bumiputera or Bumiputra (Jawi: بوميڤوترا) is a Malaysian term to describe the Malay race and other indigenous peoples of Southeast Asia, and used particularly in Malaysia. The term comes from the Sanskrit word bhumiputra, which can be translated literally as "son of the land" or "son of the soil" (bhumi= earth or land, putra=son).
In the 1970s, the Malaysian government implemented policies which The Economist called "racially discriminatory" designed to favour bumiputras (including affirmative action in public education) to create opportunities, and to defuse inter-ethnic tensions following the extended violence against Chinese Malaysians in the 13 May Incident in 1969.[1] These policies have succeeded in creating a significant urban Malay middle class. They have been less effective in eradicating poverty among rural communities. Some analysts have noted a backlash of resentment from excluded groups, in particular the sizeable Chinese and Indian Malaysian minorities



Orang Asli (lit. "original people", "natural people" or "aboriginal people" in Malay) is a generic Malaysian term used officially for the indigenous people of Peninsular Malaysia. Officially, there are 18 Orang Asli tribes, categorised under three main groups according to their different languages and customs:
Semang (or Negrito), generally confined to the northern portion of the peninsula
Senoi, residing in the central region
Proto-Malay (or Aboriginal Malay), in the southern region.
There is an Orang Asli museum at Gombak, about 25 km north of Kuala Lumpur

The Senoi (also spelled Sengoi
The Senoi tribes live in the central part of the Malaya Peninsula,[3] and consist of six different groups, the Semai, Temiar, Mah Meri, Jah Hut, Semaq Beri and the Che Wong, all of who speak Senoic languages and have a total population of about 60,000.[4]
and Sng'oi) are a set of Malaysian hunting and gathering Orang Asli peoples.
Their ancestors are believed to have arrived from southern Thailand about 4,500 years ago.[5]
During the Malayan Emergency, the guerrilla war fought from 1948 to 1960 a small fighting force, the Senoi Praaq was created, which is now part of the General Operations Force of the Royal Malaysia Police.



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/13/science/13migrate.html
DNA Study Yields Clues on First Migration of Early Humans
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: May 13, 2005
The geneticists say there was only one migration of modern humans out of Africa; that it took a southern route to India, Southeast Asia and Australia; and that it consisted of a single band of hunter-gatherers, probably just a few hundred people strong.

Because these events occurred in the last Ice Age, when Europe was at first too cold for human habitation, the researchers say, it was populated only later, not directly from Africa but as an offshoot of the southern migration. The people of this offshoot would presumably have trekked back through the lands that are now India and Iran to reach the Near East and Europe.

Everyone in the world can be placed on a single family tree, in terms of their mitochondrial DNA, because everyone has inherited that piece of DNA from a single woman, the mitochondrial Eve, who lived some 200,000 years ago.
There were, of course, many other women in that ancient population. But over the generations, one mitochondrial DNA replaced all the others through the process known as genetic drift.

With the help of mutations that have built up on the one surviving copy, geneticists can arrange people in lineages and estimate the time of origin of each lineage.
With this approach, Dr. Macaulay's team calculates that the emigration from Africa occurred 65,000 years ago, pushed along the coasts of India and Southeast Asia and reached Australia by 50,000 years ago, the date of the earliest known archaeological site there.

The Malaysian people whom the geneticists studied are the Orang Asli. The term means "original men" in Malay.
They are probably descended from this first migration, because they have several ancient mitochondrial DNA lineages that are found nowhere else.

These lineages are 42,000 to 63,000 years old, the geneticists say. Subgroups of the Orang Asli, like the Semang, have probably been able to remain intact because they adapted to the harsh existence of living in forests, said Dr. Stephen Oppenheimer, the member of the geneticists' team who collected blood samples in Malaysia.

Some archaeologists theorize that Europe was colonized by a second migration that traveled north out of Africa. This fits with the earliest known modern human sites, dating from 45,000 years ago in the Levant and 40,000 years ago in Europe.
Dr. Macaulay's team says there could have been just one migration, not two, because the mitochondrial lineages of everyone outside Africa converge at the same time to the same common ancestors. Therefore, people from the southern migration, probably in India, must have struck inland to reach the Levant and, later, Europe, the geneticists say.

Dr. Macaulay said it was not clear why just one group succeeded in leaving Africa. One possibility is that because the migration occurred by continuous population expansion, leaving people in place at each site, the first emigrants may have blocked others from leaving. Another is that the terrain was so difficult for hunter-gatherers, who carry all their belongings with them, that only one group succeeded in the exodus.

Although there is general but not complete agreement that modern humans emigrated from Africa in recent times, there is still a difference between geneticists and archaeologists about its a timing. Archaeologists tend to view the genetic data as providing invaluable information about the interrelationship between groups, but they place less confidence in the dates derived from genetic family trees.

Arguments against the DNA dating:
There is no evidence of modern humans outside Africa earlier than 50,000 years ago, said Dr. Richard Klein, an archaeologist at Stanford. Also, if something happened 65,000 years ago to allow people to leave Africa, as Dr. Macaulay's team suggests, there should surely be some record of that in the archaeological record in Africa, Dr. Klein said. Yet signs of modern human behavior do not appear in Africa until 50,000 years ago, the transition between the Middle and Later Stone Ages, he said.
"If they want to push such an idea, find me a 65,000-year-old site with evidence of human occupation outside of Africa," Dr. Klein said.

Geneticists counter that many of the coastline sites occupied by the first emigrants would now lie under water, because the sea level has risen more than 200 feet since the last Ice Age. Dr. Klein expressed reservations about that argument, noting that people would not wait for the slowly rising sea levels to overwhelm them but would build new sites farther inland.

Dr. Macaulay said genetic dates had improved in recent years, now that it is affordable to decode the whole ring of mitochondrial DNA, and not just a small segment.
But he said he agreed "that archaeological dates are much firmer than the genetic ones" and that it was possible his 65,000-year date for the African exodus was too old.

Dr. Macaulay's team has been able to estimate the size of the population in Africa from which the founders descended. The calculation indicates a maximum of 550 women. The true size may have been considerably less. This points to a single group of hunter-gatherers, perhaps a couple of hundred strong, as the ancestors of all humans outside of Africa, Dr. Macaulay said.


http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/science/la-sci-india-australia-migration-20130115
DNA study sheds light on aboriginal Australians' heritage

Researchers turn up evidence of interbreeding between native Australians and people who came from India.
January 14, 2013|By Rosie Mestel, Los Angeles Times

When modern humans left Africa as far back as 70,000 years ago, they dispersed across the world, reaching Australia 50,000 to 40,000 years ago. From then until the 18th-century arrival of European colonists, aboriginal Australians did not mix their DNA with anyone else in the world — or so many scientists believed.

Now a study has turned up evidence of much more recent interbreeding between native Australians and people who came from India. The findings, based on a detailed examination of the DNA of aboriginal Australians and hundreds of people of other pedigrees, found that mixing occurred as recently as 4,200 years ago.

Reported in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the results dovetail with interesting archaeological and fossil changes, said study leader Mark Stoneking, a molecular anthropologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. Right around that time, new kinds of stone tools called microliths appeared in Australia, finer than earlier tools discovered there but similar to tools already in use elsewhere in the world.

Also at this point in time, Australia's wild dog, the dingo, shows up for the first time in the fossil records. Scientists know the dingo is not native to the Australian continent, where all indigenous mammals are marsupials that bear immature young and often carry them in pouches. The dingo, in contrast, is a placental mammal and a subspecies of the gray wolf, like the domestic dog.

"We don't know for sure that these events are connected, but the fact that all of these occur at the same time suggests that they may be," Stoneking said.
To reach their conclusions, Stoneking's team conducted a detailed scan of the genomes of 344 people, including Aborigines from the country's Northern Territory as well as people from Papua New Guinea, Southeast Asia, India, China and those of Western and Northern European ancestry. The scientists looked for places where the DNA code sometimes differed by a single DNA building block, or nucleotide, between members of their sample.

By noting to what extent individuals shared the roughly 1 million tiny variations that were found, the team could piece together trees that showed how each group of people was genetically related to the others and estimate how long ago the groups had become distinct.

They found, for example, that aboriginal Australians, Papua New Guinea highlanders and the Mamanwa people from the Philippines were genetically closest to each other and diverged about 36,000 years ago. This fit well with earlier genetic studies.
But the team was surprised to find — using four separate statistical methods — that a much more recent genetic mixing with people from India had occurred. They estimated that about 11% of the DNA of aboriginal Australians is derived from this event.
Earlier studies had hinted as much, but they were limited to smaller regions of the genome: the Y chromosome, which is only carried by males, and a type of DNA called mitochondrial DNA that is passed down from mothers to their children, Stoneking said.
The authors of the new study also estimated how far back this genetic mixing had occurred, via the following reasoning: A child born of an Aborigine and an Indian would carry in his or her genome an entire, unbroken stretch of each chromosome, one from each parent. But with each generation, those two chromosomes swap bits and pieces with each other. Down the generations, therefore, the pure Indian or pure Australian chromosome stretches will become increasingly shorter.

Using the size and number of DNA stretches in people alive today, the team ran computer simulations to calculate that 141 generations have passed since the initial interbreeding. With each generation assumed to be 30 years, that adds up to 4,230 years.

It isn't clear how the mixing took place. Though it might make sense that the gene flow occurred in Indonesia, no traces of Indian DNA could be found among the Indonesians in the sample and no Indonesian DNA could be found in the Australians, the authors said — perhaps suggesting the migrants came directly to Australia by water. Still, a more detailed analysis of Indonesian genomes would be needed to rule out that connection, Stoneking said.

Scientists can now pinpoint people's movements across the globe and their heady brews of ancestry with a precision that would have been unimaginable not long ago, said Stanford University geneticist Michael Snyder, who wasn't involved in the new study. In 2008, for example, an analysis of 3,000 Europeans found that their DNA could predict the places they came from to within several hundred kilometers.

Sometimes the results are surprising, he added. In 2010, for example, close inspection of a sample of hair from a man who lived in western Greenland 4,000 years ago revealed that his nearest living relatives were native Siberians — and thus that there had been migrations across the top of North America that had gone unappreciated by scientists before.

Was Jane Austen Really Black?


When I searched this question on the Internet after reading one of the racial references in a Jane Austen book, Mansfield Park, I found many entries in which the claim that she was black or mulatto was made. I tried to find out whether the allegations are coming from an ethnocentric standpoint, such as black supremacy. I found a great many claims that, among other things, said Cro Magnon man was black (which makes sense because dark skin is dominant over light genetically, and the Cro-Magnons were thought to be newly arrived from Africa). One article also claimed that a large number of famous Europeans were black – that black people used to be the ruling class, and even that all the early peoples of Europe and the Middle East were black until the Indo-European migrations from Finland (according to the article) came in and established dominance.


That article and another similar one that I found persistently called the white race “The Albinos,” and accused them of lying about history. These articles call themselves Black History. I think Black History is about a broader range of subjects than these, and should have the backing of some white historians as well, if they are based on facts. Surely there are some honest white historians.


The author called the people in the Bible black, when they are at this time in the Middle East definitely mostly olive -skinned rather than dark-skinned, and they aren't considered negroid by modern scientists who study race, even when their skin is dark. Many Indian people are quite dark, but they are also not considered negroid. I read a good part of a book on raciation some years ago, and it identified many more racially identifiable groups than the three that most people think of. It even went on to say that to divide people up by race into the three races is fallacious, due to the extreme number of subdivisions among groups and specific differences between individuals.


I empathize with black people in modern society, because there is no doubt that they have been and are still often mistreated shamefully, and I personally see to it that I don't do that, but when I encounter “black supremacy” I don't find it to be any more righteous or truthful than “white supremacy,” and both work to destroy a just peace within the big race – the human race. No race has a monopoly on virtue, or intelligence, beauty, greatness, or any other fine characteristic. The only good way for the races to get along is to step aside from their group loyalties and meet as individuals on a fair playing field. I believe I can truthfully say that this is what I practice as well as preach. To me it's the only way.


But to the subject of Jane Austen – she did write in several places about mulattoes living among the ranks of privileged people in great houses, or hinted at it. I've seen that in other books from the time period, too. This developed as a number of former slaves had gone into business and made fortunes, and then married into the Middle Class or higher ranks within British and European society, so she probably did see a fair number of cases of it. According to one article, the societal attitudes toward mixed marriages and miscegenation was not as negative in England and Jamaica as it has always been in the US. Austen wrote against slavery, which was at its height in her lifetime.



As to her heritage, her brother described her as being of a “brunette” complexion with hazel eyes. The following quotations from others who knew her said similar things about her (from the article called "Was Jane Austen Black?" on the website Online-literature.com):


"... her's was the first face I can remember thinking pretty ... Her hair, a darkish brown, curled naturally – it was in short curls round her face...Her face was rather round than long – she had a bright but not a pink colour – a clear brown complexion and very good hazel eyes. Her hair, a darkish brown, curled naturally, it was in short curls around her face. She always wore a cap ... before she left Steventon she was established as a very pretty girl, in the opinion of most of her neighbours."

Caroline Austen,
Jane's niece



"Her hair was dark brown and curled naturally, her large dark eyes were widely opened and expressive. She had clear brown skin and blushed so brightly and so readily."

An early description of young Jane at Steventon by Sir Egerton Brydges



" Her stature rather exceeded the middle height; her carriage and deportment were quiet but graceful; her complexion of the finest texture, it might with truth be said that her eloquent blood spoke through her modest
cheek."



" Her pure and eloquent blood spake in her cheeks and so distinctly wrought that you had almost said her body thought."

Henry Austen said of his sister



[QUOTE=Egmond Codfried;928423[/QUOTE] author and a Jane Austen fan:


WAS JANE AUSTEN (1775-1817) BLACK?

You have asked the same question before and the answer is NO.

Are you sure that you don't work for the BBC?





Those descriptions could be of a mulatto, or of an olive skinned person, equally, especially as the ideal of the time period by contrast was fair skin, blue eyes and blond hair. Two reports I saw spoke of a portrait of Jane Austen showing negroid features. A portrait with the heading “Cassandra Austen or Jane Austen?” was posted on the Online-literature site, and to me, the features are more indistinct than negroid. The nose certainly isn't. The mouth is pursed up in a slightly odd way, but doesn't look anymore full or large than a typical white person's mouth usually does. In general it isn't a very good portrait, so I wouldn't judge by it; the proportions of the body are clumsy-looking.



I don't care if Jane Austen was a mulatto (or more likely a quadroon, according to one article I read – Barack Obama has one parent white and the other black, is a mulatto). I would like to know it if she was, because it makes her all the more interesting. Wikipedia says that Elizabeth Barrett Browning thought herself to be part black, but that there is no proof of it.



So far, I haven't been able to find any proof of Jane Austen's race one way or the other. I think the whole idea is a very recent one, and the only way to prove it one way or the other would be to go to the modern day descendants of her family (she had no children) and do some DNA tests. Maybe somebody will do that some day. Whatever she was racially, I still consider her to be one of the very best and most entertaining authors of English literature.