AngelaJP
New member
From what I know, race refers to the physical/biological aspect and ethnicity the cultural.
Racism, prejudice and terminology (Bad News: EGYPT spinoff)
- Thread starter Tarik Sultan
- Start date
From what I know, race refers to the physical/biological aspect and ethnicity the cultural.
Pirika Repun
New member
Actually one more :Australoid
However all these category are Anatomical feature, and I assume that it may use for forensic science to define physical identity.
You can't just categorize people in to 4 groups anyway
Pirika Repun
New member
Angela
You should clic the link and see what global cencus, and also see "race project" home. You can get clear idea. Also concept of "race" has changed, so you can see it in history link of the "Race project"
Last edited:
Aisha Azar
New member
Antrhopology
Dear Pirika,
Unless this is new since my time in college, Australoid is one of the subraces. For certain things one can categorize people into groups of three. These three subgroups merely mean that there is sufficient difference physical between the groups as to be a distinct group. It is true that classification by color is pretty useless, but there are other features that have nothing to do with color that are also utilized. While it is not possible to make unambiguous statements about race, there are still some that hold pretty strongly. For example, most though not all people from the Mongoloid race group do have epicanthic folds. Most though not all people from the Negroid race have wide noses. Most though not all people from the Caucasoid race have hair that is not as thick and kinky as Negroid hair or as straight and thick as Mongoloid hair. Darwin put forth a theory that environment created these physical differences over time, in the three specific groups. He further believed that had people been isolated into these specific groups for millennia, then perhaps isolated species would appear, as happened with some of the other primates. This did not happen to humans according to some people and did according to others. I am on the side of those who believe that Cro Magnon and Neandertals actually produced offspring and were in fact the same species that had somehow branched off, but many disagree. The reason I believe they mated is because it seems to me like many people will have sex with anything that can not get away!!
Regards,
A'isha
Dear Pirika,
Unless this is new since my time in college, Australoid is one of the subraces. For certain things one can categorize people into groups of three. These three subgroups merely mean that there is sufficient difference physical between the groups as to be a distinct group. It is true that classification by color is pretty useless, but there are other features that have nothing to do with color that are also utilized. While it is not possible to make unambiguous statements about race, there are still some that hold pretty strongly. For example, most though not all people from the Mongoloid race group do have epicanthic folds. Most though not all people from the Negroid race have wide noses. Most though not all people from the Caucasoid race have hair that is not as thick and kinky as Negroid hair or as straight and thick as Mongoloid hair. Darwin put forth a theory that environment created these physical differences over time, in the three specific groups. He further believed that had people been isolated into these specific groups for millennia, then perhaps isolated species would appear, as happened with some of the other primates. This did not happen to humans according to some people and did according to others. I am on the side of those who believe that Cro Magnon and Neandertals actually produced offspring and were in fact the same species that had somehow branched off, but many disagree. The reason I believe they mated is because it seems to me like many people will have sex with anything that can not get away!!
Regards,
A'isha
Pirika Repun
New member
Dear Ai'sha
Yes, now physical anthropology class teach 4 racial groups, and mainly anatomical feature, because from the bones you can't define their skin color, hair texture, eye color and other visible traits. Science evolve everyday, and changed every day, so now archaeologists and paleoanthropologists find early hominid much earlier than Lucy or Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus africanus. So, everyday, they find new things.
sedoniaraqs
New member
No, of course it is not your imagination; that is not what I'm saying. Nor am I saying that we shouldn't embrace our differences. There is a difference between acknowledging that humans, on average, vary geographically in their appearance, and saying that humans can be classified into X number of distinct races. I can generally spot Russian women by their facial features, but this doesn't mean that Russians are a different "race" from Germans or English. Indians tell me they can tell someone's caste just by looking at them, but the Indian castes are not races.
Certainly, "African" isn't a valid biological race. That is probably the grouping that makes the least sense, because most human variation is found in Africa, so the blanket term "African" groups people who are quite dissimilar in appearance and genetics, and I'm not just talking about relatively recent immigrants like white South Africans. If you wanted to even attempt to base race on a genetic tree of evolutionary relationships, you would need to recognize dozens of African races.
Instead of just seeing the people who don't fit into "Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid" as exceptions to the rules, and instead of endless "if, then" addendums to the rules (if you have black skin but not kinky hair then...if you are medium brown with curly hair but your nose is narrow and your grandmother didn't speak Spanish then....), we need to admit the rules are inherently flawed.
sedoniaraqs
New member
And just for the record, the bolded phrase in one of my previous messages was also not yelling, but highlighting what I considered the key important concept in my post.
AngelaJP
New member
Of late, scientists have even classified it more specifically into 5 groups based on the skull measurements and shape to classify races. First 3, then 4 and now 5 races. Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid, Congoid, Capoid. The previous Negroid was broken down into 2, I think.
This was from a discussion with a student last year about the Races of Man. Will look up more about this online.
sedoniaraqs
New member
The other reason why "race" is not biologically valid is because in biology, "race" usually means that members of a race are more closely related to each other than they are to other races, and this has been irrefutably proven not to be the case in the traditional human "races".
If we were really distinct biological races, then "Negroids" would be more closely related (in the evolutionary/genetic sense) to other "Negroids" than they would be to "Mongoloids" or "Caucasoids". This is simply not the case. There are indigenous African groups (including people with black skin, kinky hair, and broader, flatter noses) who share a more recent common ancestor with indigenous groups of "Caucasoids" (with white skin, straight hair, and narrower higher noses) than they do with certain other "Negroid" groups that superficially look similar in terms of these few arbitrary traits that we seem so obsessed with.
This is because Africa is a huge place and both modern humans and our hominid ancestors have been milling around Africa for hundreds of thousands of years longer than we've been milling around the other continents. So by the time the "out of Africa" events took place (around 50,000 to 15,000 yrs ago -- it was actually several migratory events), Africans were already a very diverse assemblage, and the inter-continental emmigrants only came from a few places.
After the emmigrations took place, only some genes were under natural selection related to geography. Skin color was one. Too much melanin in higher latitudes causes more miscarriages due to vitamin D deficiency, and too little melanin in tropical latitudes causes more miscarriages due to folic acid destruction. The genes that cause white skin were (and still are) present among indigenous Africans, just not in the same combinations as commonly found in Europeans or Asians. Moreover, skin color has changed in both directions -- from darker to lighter and also from lighter to darker, based on dispersal patterns to different latitudes (for example, in dispersal from northern North America to tropical South America, skin color changed from lighter to darker).
Okay, that's all. I said I wasn't going to paraphrase the AAA statement, but I not only have, but have also delved into even more detail.
If we were really distinct biological races, then "Negroids" would be more closely related (in the evolutionary/genetic sense) to other "Negroids" than they would be to "Mongoloids" or "Caucasoids". This is simply not the case. There are indigenous African groups (including people with black skin, kinky hair, and broader, flatter noses) who share a more recent common ancestor with indigenous groups of "Caucasoids" (with white skin, straight hair, and narrower higher noses) than they do with certain other "Negroid" groups that superficially look similar in terms of these few arbitrary traits that we seem so obsessed with.
This is because Africa is a huge place and both modern humans and our hominid ancestors have been milling around Africa for hundreds of thousands of years longer than we've been milling around the other continents. So by the time the "out of Africa" events took place (around 50,000 to 15,000 yrs ago -- it was actually several migratory events), Africans were already a very diverse assemblage, and the inter-continental emmigrants only came from a few places.
After the emmigrations took place, only some genes were under natural selection related to geography. Skin color was one. Too much melanin in higher latitudes causes more miscarriages due to vitamin D deficiency, and too little melanin in tropical latitudes causes more miscarriages due to folic acid destruction. The genes that cause white skin were (and still are) present among indigenous Africans, just not in the same combinations as commonly found in Europeans or Asians. Moreover, skin color has changed in both directions -- from darker to lighter and also from lighter to darker, based on dispersal patterns to different latitudes (for example, in dispersal from northern North America to tropical South America, skin color changed from lighter to darker).
Okay, that's all. I said I wasn't going to paraphrase the AAA statement, but I not only have, but have also delved into even more detail.
sedoniaraqs
New member
Any Anthropology course that is presenting the current state of scientific knowledge is going to dump all of these.
AngelaJP
New member
Angela. You should clic the link and see what global cencus, and also see "race project" home. You can get clear idea. Also concept of "race" has changed, so you can see it in history link of the "Race project"
Thanks Pirika! This is amusing and interesting as I tried to answer the survey, hehe. Generally, race is different from ethnicity though. Ethnic/cultural/indigenous groups are supposed to mean totally differently from race which pertains to color or physical attributes! I wonder who made this census/website? :think:
AngelaJP
New member
Just found some info. Actually, it was Harvard anthropologist, Carleton Coon, who added more to the classifications to total 5. What do you think of these?
Craniofacial anthropometry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Races of Humanity
NationMaster - Encyclopedia: Congoid
sedoniaraqs
New member
I teach a general evolution course to non-science majors. I am not a physical anthropologist, but I did confer closely with a primate evolution specialist in putting together my human evolution lectures. Here is why "race" as traditionally defined is biologically invalid. This is a tree of evolutionary relationships based on DNA sequences.
Last edited:
Pirika Repun
New member
Angela
These "race" categories are more like anatomical difference and it is useful for forensic science. However, I said before, you can't define their visible traits such as skin color, eye color, hair texture and all other features. Also using these racial terms are consider as "racist term" as well. Like Sedonia said these entire category in anthropology has changed now. They still teach significant differences in physical anthropology class to show evolution and variation of human, and not emphasize any superiority or inferiority in the difference. Because of Africa has longest human history, so in Africa has more human variation than world total.
Tarik said in his post and I agree there is NO racial classification, just “human race” these 4 or 5 categories are just BS in my opinion. Some people identify race as cultural or religious background to say like “I’m Jewish” instead of saying “I’m white (Caucasoid) ”
Global census and race project web site are made by American Anthropological Association.
Ethnicity is part of race, and this census shows some country use “race” as meaning of “ethnicity”
Science change every day and evolve every day, so if they say yes to today, maybe no to tomorrow.
sedoniaraqs
New member
Just found some info. Actually, it was Harvard anthropologist, Carleton Coon, who added more to the classifications to total 5. What do you think of these?
Craniofacial anthropometry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Races of Humanity
NationMaster - Encyclopedia: Congoid
With regard to the 5 race system, there is still going to be more variation within groups than between groups, so what is the point?
As for Carlton Coon, I care far less about the prestige of his position at an Ivy League school, and far more about whether these ideas are based on scientifically valid data and conclusions. The AAA statement is in line with a very large body of evidence which grows larger all the time.
Last edited:
AngelaJP
New member
I was only sharing what I know. I hope I have not offended you by sharing. Please see my previous post where I mentioned that these classifications are only based on skull/craniofacial characteristics.
Very dynamic, I agree. That is why I mentioned that at first there were only 3 classifications, then now, more. The world was believed flat and then now proven round. We never know what evidence will be discovered next or what theories will crop up again. Great to have an open mind
Pirika Repun
New member
I was only sharing what I know. I hope I have not offended you by sharing. Please see my previous post where I mentioned that these classifications are only based on skull/craniofacial characteristics.
Very dynamic, I agree. That is why I mentioned that at first there were only 3 classifications, then now, more. The world was believed flat and then now proven round. We never know what evidence will be discovered next or what theories will crop up again. Great to have an open mind
Angela
No you are not offended me or anybody. Like Sedonia I study anthropology in college, and my main field was archaeology. However, anthropology major students have to study all 4 categories of fields such as cultural anthropology, physical anthropology, archaeology, and linguistics. My main field was archaeology, but I was deeply into cultural anthropology too, because without culture there is no people and no archaeology. But I’m not professor or teacher, I just work my day time job…
I want to try to say is these 4 or 5 racial classification is NOT only describe as “race” there is more than this cranial type or whatever the physical type. Identity of race, ethnicity or nationality is more personal choice. I’m sure you don’t say “I’m Mongolid (or Yellow)” but you might say “I’m Pilipino” or Asian or what ever you want identify yourself then people understand what you want to try to say.
I hope you follow me.
karena
New member
To my mind these scientific versions of race are just the construction of race though another field. What the scientists say will reflect what society says. I'm not suggesting there is only one version of the world, and that both will say the same. It is far far more complicated than that. But scientists do not work in a vacuum. They are reflections of their environment. So all these scientific definitions etc doesn't stop race from being a social construct developed to keep the little people down, as per Tarik's posts. I'm not saying that is what people are saying, just offering a perspective through my theoretical framework.
Aisha Azar
New member
Paleoanthropology, ec.
Dear Sedonia,
Although I still disagree with the basic biological idea that there is no such thing as race, I think you deserve Rep for the best explanation of the day!! I just can't give it to you until I spread some Rep around.
Regards,
A'isha
Dear Sedonia,
Although I still disagree with the basic biological idea that there is no such thing as race, I think you deserve Rep for the best explanation of the day!! I just can't give it to you until I spread some Rep around.
Regards,
A'isha
Last edited: