Many old Shanxi/Shaanbei people look like this guy



(most of the men in here aren't wide faced)

Sometimes they can get to gracile-Med levels of narrowness at the extremes which I feel like isn't really found in other Mongoloid groups much

(not from Shanxi- rather an ancestrally Gansu Hui guy born in Beijing but his face is possible in Shanxi and to me displays well the extreme of what you could possibly find in terms of narrowness for elderly people there) 

i.ytimg.com/vi/iq8X5P7Lv-g/sddefault.jpg

history.xikao.com/photos/people/%E9%A9%AC%E4%B8%89%E7%AB%8B.jpg

My experience with Shanxi people mostly came from my aunt's ex-husband, who was from Shanxi. My aunt was born in 1960 and her ex-husband was probably around the same age.  The man didn't give me any narrow impressions, he was quite robust and had a wide face.

I'm not denying that there are long-narrow faced individuals among older generations of Northern Chinese, but I definitely think their percentage is drastically exaggerated by Northern Chinese posters like uisashi and throway2. Having grown up in Beijing (when I was growing up in the 90's Beijing wasn't as cosmopolitan as it is now), I admit that I've met very few people with long and narrow faces, no matter what generation they belonged to.

TBH I don't think long-narrow faces are common anywhere in China or in the Asia-Pacific region. Mongoloids by default aren't narrow-faced.

Bulk street Beijing types in the turn of 1900 were long narrow faced. I have the impression based on older student pictures that they were narrow faced in the past, but their face got shorter and wider sometime in the 2000s. I suspect current generation young north Chinese in urban areas are overfed and have a very sedentary lifestyle, leading to phenotype changes. It would also explain why northern ABCs and old gen north Chinese (both groups don't overfeed), are generally narrow faced

There is a very strong overlap with SE Asians among these individuals. Many can pass easily in Indochina/mainland SE Asia and maybe also Philippines and Indonesia. Some even reminds me of ethnic Chinese Thais or Thais with Chinese admixture (they don't identify as Chinese but still have Han blood). 

Number 2 and 35 looks the most Khmer. Meanwhile Number 19 looks very Thai to me. 9, 13, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 32, 35, 38, 39, 40, 42 also looks very SE Asian with 24 and 39 reminds me of some lighter skinned Indonesians. 8, 17, 24, 35, 39 looks the most Indian and Western Eurasian admixed to me.

I'm quite surprised, you don't seen these looks as much among Viets.

I think I've mentioned many times on Anthroscape that folks from Western GD and GX have a strong overlap with SE Asians, not only with mainland SE Asians but sometimes also with insular or maritime ones as well. At that time nobody believed me. But now you know.

Yes a lot of them indeed have a strong overlap with SE Asians, and some of them also look South Asian influenced. I believe Lingnan people have some Vietnam Neolithic and Laos Bronze Age components judging by the G25 charts that I've seen before, maybe that's where those looks come from.

I must say that this thread has been well trolled by you. Really you lack basic knowledge on anthropology. Okarina and uisashi sometimes troll as well, but most of the times what they're saying does make some sense, whereas what you said doesn't make sense at all.

There's no way that Khalkha Mongols look similar to Far South Chinese and SE Asians, since there're multiple key differences in terms of their facial features. Khalkha Mongols have a typical northern appearance, which is 高眶高面 in Chinese terms, which can be translated as having brow ridges set further apart from the eyes, and also having a greater facial length. On the contrary, Far South Chinese and SE Asians are typically 低眶低面, which means their brow ridges are usually set rather close to the eyes, and they generally have a smaller facial length.

To sum it up, Khalkha Mongols have genuinely large faces both in terms of length and width, whereas Far South Chinese and SE Asians have small faces both in terms of length and width. And their facial proportions are different as well. Khalkha Mongols like other northern Asians have a smaller forehead area and the facial features (eyes, nose, and mouth) are dispersed evenly on the whole face, whereas Far South Chinese and SE Asians have a larger forehead area that covers the upper 1/3 of their face and their facial features are clustered tightly on the bottom 2/3 of the face. Of course like every generalization there ought to be a few exceptions, but it's undeniable that such generalizations do apply to the majority of people with ancestry from the respective regions.

The only similarity between Khalkha Mongols and SE Asians that I can think of is that compared to core East Asians like Northern Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese, both have some West Eurasian elements (though their West Eurasian elements are likely from different sources as well). But other than that there's no similarity at all, neither in terms of culture nor language and nor genetics or appearance. Please stop making absurd claims that lack basic common sense.

And amongst all East and SE Asians, Northern Chinese are definitely the most similar to Khalkha Mongols in terms of appearance, genes, and maybe even culture as well. I found it funny that some Northern Chinese posters like you (I've encountered a few similar ones on Tieba and Zhihu as well) keep pushing the Mongols to the south as if they were some undesirable creatures that need to be kept far away from the premises of Northern China. Whether you hate them or not, you still need to accept the obvious fact that they're much closer to Northern Chinese than to Far South Chinese and SE Asians.

Really please stop trolling in my thread, this is a warning to you.

Phenotype most of the times does ally rather strictly to a north-south axis at least in the Asia-Pacific region. I've seen Chinese from nearly all regions and I've also seen many SE Asians as well, and yes there's definitely an obvious north-to-south cline. To deny this is tantamount to lying.

And I've never attached any connotation of masculinity/robustness to northern phenotype and femininity/gracileness to southern phenotype, stop putting words into my mouth. For instance Buakaw Banchamek is hyper masculine yet nobody would ever deny that he looks very southern and very typical of SE Asia. And also I don't think masculinity is necessarily associated with robustness and femininity is necessarily associated to gracileness. No it doesn't work this way in the real world. For me masculinity and femininity largely depend on what one says and what one does instead of what one looks like. A person can be gracile and masculine at the same time.

And neither Cantonese Americans nor Cantonese from HK can represent all Cantonese, at most they could only represent a particular subset of Cantonese.