Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Is race real or is it just a human invention?

Page 3 of 13 [ 204 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 13  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

BrandonSP
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jul 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,286
Location: Fallbrook, CA

13 Aug 2012, 10:23 am

AspieRogue wrote:
The terms "caucasoid, negroid, & mongoloid" describe groups with common external features.

Even so, there can be a lot of overlap between these categories. For example, a lot of people in Northeast Africa such as Ethiopians and Somalis have more "Caucasian" facial features (e.g. narrower noses) than other Africans despite having only a minor Eurasian genetic component at the very most (and even then, it's hard to determine whether this Eurasian component is the product of actual backflow or merely reflects that Eurasians have their ultimate origins in Northeast Africa). Furthermore, external physical features do not always correlate with genetic affinity. Asian Negritos, Papuans, and Australian aborigines may look "Negroid" to some people, but they are genetically very distant from anyone in Africa and have closer genetic relations to "Mongoloid" Asians. In fact even people who do believe in race will classify these groups in their own "Australoid" category.


_________________
Check out my art for sale over at Society6, dudes!


compiledkernel
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jun 2012
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 224

13 Aug 2012, 11:01 am

Jitro wrote:
Is there really a white, black and asian race, or were they just invented by humans?


To the OP's statement,

I feel that the issue of Race is an invented idea.

Envoirmental factors can be attributed to a persons color, just as evolution and adaptation can be. These are factors outside of an "independent race" as deemed by society. Humans as a Race, yes. But a subdivision under that, no.


_________________
An Old NetSec Engineer. Diag 11/29.
A1: AS 299.80 A2: SPD features 301.20
GAF: 50 - 60 range.
PMs are fine, but my answers are probably going to be weird.


AspieRogue

13 Aug 2012, 11:34 am

BrandonSP wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
The terms "caucasoid, negroid, & mongoloid" describe groups with common external features.

Even so, there can be a lot of overlap between these categories. For example, a lot of people in Northeast Africa such as Ethiopians and Somalis have more "Caucasian" facial features (e.g. narrower noses) than other Africans despite having only a minor Eurasian genetic component at the very most (and even then, it's hard to determine whether this Eurasian component is the product of actual backflow or merely reflects that Eurasians have their ultimate origins in Northeast Africa). Furthermore, external physical features do not always correlate with genetic affinity. Asian Negritos, Papuans, and Australian aborigines may look "Negroid" to some people, but they are genetically very distant from anyone in Africa and have closer genetic relations to "Mongoloid" Asians. In fact even people who do believe in race will classify these groups in their own "Australoid" category.



The people who live in the horn of Africa and speak hamito-semetic languages(like Ethiopians and Somali's) have both (semitic)caucasoid AND negroid ancestry. The melanesians however, are still very much a puzzle. They arrived in Sundaland some 60,000 years ago from east africa by boat.
It turns out that east asian mongoloids are genetically close to caucasoids and part of the North Eurasian Supercluster.

But why do you peeps not acknowledge what I said about the Khoisans??? They truly ARE a distinct race not only because of their unique physical appearance, but do to their distinct genetic makeup.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,182
Location: temperate zone

13 Aug 2012, 12:52 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
wogaboo wrote:
Burzum wrote:
The "caucasoid, negroid and mongoloid" racial groupings are archaic and biologically meaningless.


I disagree. All of human kind fits into one of these 3 categories

...except they don't. many people are in the middle between the supposed groupings, or have combinations of those groupings and may or may not have attributes of one or another. also people within each supposed group could have characteristics like members of another group. dividing people by race denies the fact there isn't any defining characteristic of any one race beyond what is seen visually, and even THAT has too many exceptions to make a rule.



The terms "caucasoid, negroid, & mongoloid" describe groups with common external features.


The irony is that folks who take those three categories seriously are the first to say that large numbers of humans do NOT fit into those categories, and that you need FIVE categories.

The Khoisan peoples of southern Africa dispite being african are not "negroid",nor are they in the other two categories, and so warrant a "race" category of their own.

Likewise the dark peoples of the southwest pacific (melanesians, micronesians) and the Australian Aborigonies also need their own category. So there are actually five major races, and not three.

One might be tempted to lump the Australian aboriginoies in with "black" subsaharan african "negroid" peoples because the two groups superfiically look somewhat alike.

But genetic studies have shown that the two farthest apart races genetically are: Black Africans and the Australian Aborigonies.



AspieRogue

13 Aug 2012, 1:36 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
wogaboo wrote:
Burzum wrote:
The "caucasoid, negroid and mongoloid" racial groupings are archaic and biologically meaningless.


I disagree. All of human kind fits into one of these 3 categories

...except they don't. many people are in the middle between the supposed groupings, or have combinations of those groupings and may or may not have attributes of one or another. also people within each supposed group could have characteristics like members of another group. dividing people by race denies the fact there isn't any defining characteristic of any one race beyond what is seen visually, and even THAT has too many exceptions to make a rule.



The terms "caucasoid, negroid, & mongoloid" describe groups with common external features.


The irony is that folks who take those three categories seriously are the first to say that large numbers of humans do NOT fit into those categories, and that you need FIVE categories.

The Khoisan peoples of southern Africa dispite being african are not "negroid",nor are they in the other two categories, and so warrant a "race" category of their own.

Likewise the dark peoples of the southwest pacific (melanesians, micronesians) and the Australian Aborigonies also need their own category. So there are actually five major races, and not three.

One might be tempted to lump the Australian aboriginoies in with "black" subsaharan african "negroid" peoples because the two groups superfiically look somewhat alike.

But genetic studies have shown that the two farthest apart races genetically are: Black Africans and the Australian Aborigonies.




Actually what genetic studies have shown is that the khoisan people of southern africa are a race unto themselves and are genetically distant from ALL other modern humans. The furthest *races* apart in terms of Y-chromosomal haplogroups are actually the Papuans and the Khoisans people.



wogaboo
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 151

13 Aug 2012, 3:04 pm

AspieRogue wrote:



Actually what genetic studies have shown is that the khoisan people of southern africa are a race unto themselves and are genetically distant from ALL other modern humans. The furthest *races* apart in terms of Y-chromosomal haplogroups are actually the Papuans and the Khoisans people.


The genetic studies you cite are based on JUNK DNA so they prove only that Papuans and khoisans are far apart chronologically ( they've been geographically separated for tens of thousands of years). However in terms of functional DNA (skin color, hair texture etc) both groups have probably not changed much genetically from their common ancestor; it probably makes good sense to classify both groups as Negroid



enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

13 Aug 2012, 3:45 pm

wogaboo wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Actually what genetic studies have shown is that the khoisan people of southern africa are a race unto themselves and are genetically distant from ALL other modern humans. The furthest *races* apart in terms of Y-chromosomal haplogroups are actually the Papuans and the Khoisans people.


The genetic studies you cite are based on JUNK DNA so they prove only that Papuans and khoisans are far apart chronologically ( they've been geographically separated for tens of thousands of years). However in terms of functional DNA (skin color, hair texture etc) both groups have probably not changed much genetically from their common ancestor; it probably makes good sense to classify both groups as Negroid

Why couldn't they have developped these traits independently due to living in a vaguely similar environment?



AspieRogue

13 Aug 2012, 5:57 pm

wogaboo wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:



Actually what genetic studies have shown is that the khoisan people of southern africa are a race unto themselves and are genetically distant from ALL other modern humans. The furthest *races* apart in terms of Y-chromosomal haplogroups are actually the Papuans and the Khoisans people.


The genetic studies you cite are based on JUNK DNA so they prove only that Papuans and khoisans are far apart chronologically ( they've been geographically separated for tens of thousands of years). However in terms of functional DNA (skin color, hair texture etc) both groups have probably not changed much genetically from their common ancestor; it probably makes good sense to classify both groups as Negroid



That's nonsense. Khoisan people do have many negroid features but in addition to much lighter skin and epicanthic folds("asian" looking eyes). The have genetic markers that are not found in any other human population on Earth.

But I do agree it makes sense to classify Melanesians as negroid. The people of Papua not only look almost identical to bantu speaking black africans, but they have uncanny cultural similarities as well.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

13 Aug 2012, 6:48 pm

I wonder if an extraterrestrial civilization would make the same racial distinctions when observing humanity. Somehow I doubt it would mean much more than slightly different colored birds of the same species mean to us. Assuming they don't just look at the Middle East, the Republican party and Jersey Shore and destroy us for our transgressions against the tonal architects of the macroverse


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


AspieRogue

13 Aug 2012, 7:09 pm

Vigilans wrote:
I wonder if an extraterrestrial civilization would make the same racial distinctions when observing humanity.


They most likely would; unless they already knew something about terrestrial genetics.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

13 Aug 2012, 7:13 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
I wonder if an extraterrestrial civilization would make the same racial distinctions when observing humanity.


They most likely would; unless they already knew something about terrestrial genetics.


It would be interesting if their criteria for the individuality of "races" is something obscure like gut flora or other physiological characteristics that have less social meaning for us.


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


wogaboo
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 151

13 Aug 2012, 8:20 pm

AspieRogue wrote:



That's nonsense. Khoisan people do have many negroid features but in addition to much lighter skin and epicanthic folds("asian" looking eyes). The have genetic markers that are not found in any other human population on Earth.



Just because they have some unique traits does not mean we need to create a whole new category just for them. For examples humans have some very unique traits (we're the only animal that talks and walks upright) but that doesn't mean we're not classified as primates.

Similarly just because Khoisan have unique genes, eye folds and coloring, does not mean we shouldn't classify them as Negroid. They are far more similar to negroids than to Mongoloids or caucasoids, so it probably makes sense to just consider them a subdivision within the Negroid race than to treat them as entirely different race.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

13 Aug 2012, 8:32 pm

wogaboo wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:



That's nonsense. Khoisan people do have many negroid features but in addition to much lighter skin and epicanthic folds("asian" looking eyes). The have genetic markers that are not found in any other human population on Earth.



Just because they have some unique traits does not mean we need to create a whole new category just for them. For examples humans have some very unique traits (we're the only animal that talks and walks upright) but that doesn't mean we're not classified as primates.

Similarly just because Khoisan have unique genes, eye folds and coloring, does not mean we shouldn't classify them as Negroid. They are far more similar to negroids than to Mongoloids or caucasoids, so it probably makes sense to just consider them a subdivision within the Negroid race than to treat them as entirely different race.


unless you actually did the genetics than you would find that the distance between Khoisan and Bantu is greater than that between English folks and the Chinese.

Negroid genetically speaking is the least useful category.


Total Number of Alleles and Number of Unique Alleles, per Continental Population

Total No. of Alleles (No. of Unique Alleles)
Population STRP
Africa 544 (62)
Asia 474 (16)
Europe 526 (34)
 Overall 635

notice 62 unique alleles in the African group
but only 16 in the Asians and 34 in the Europeans.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1288178/

This shows that white and black are way less meaningful than Asian.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,343
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Aug 2012, 9:57 pm

Vigilans wrote:
I wonder if an extraterrestrial civilization would make the same racial distinctions when observing humanity. Somehow I doubt it would mean much more than slightly different colored birds of the same species mean to us. Assuming they don't just look at the Middle East, the Republican party and Jersey Shore and destroy us for our transgressions against the tonal architects of the macroverse


Who's to say the aliens wouldn't have a diverse gene pool as Us?
Remember, the Vulcans produced Caucasians like Spock, and Negroids like Tuvock. :lol:

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Pyrite
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,247
Location: Mid-Atlantic United States

13 Aug 2012, 10:56 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
I wonder if an extraterrestrial civilization would make the same racial distinctions when observing humanity. Somehow I doubt it would mean much more than slightly different colored birds of the same species mean to us. Assuming they don't just look at the Middle East, the Republican party and Jersey Shore and destroy us for our transgressions against the tonal architects of the macroverse


Who's to say the aliens wouldn't have a diverse gene pool as Us?
Remember, the Vulcans produced Caucasians like Spock, and Negroids like Tuvock. :lol:

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Space Sneetches? 8O
Image


_________________
AQ 40. EQ 10/SQ 92. AS 184/NT 18. dx.


LennytheWicked
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Age: 28
Gender: Female
Posts: 545

13 Aug 2012, 11:46 pm

Well considering the diseases people are more or less prone to based on race, yeah, I'd go with real.

[Whites are more likely to get ingrown butthair infections, for example. Lol.]