What is your race?

[JCG]

With so few options....I refuse to vote.

[JohnM2433]

Originally posted by One_Brow
Anything is possible. Do you have specific traits in mind?

Facial features in general, I suppose. They may vary widely within a race, but the same thing is true of skin color. A trait may not be common to all members of a race, but it may be far more common in some races than others. Again, I just don't think we can reasonably equate race with skin color. People of the same race don't all share the same skin color any more than similarly colored races share the same average color.

Originally posted by One_Brow
If there were genetically isolated populations, then it might make sense. However, outside of a very recent and short-lived Old World/New World separation, there have not been such genetic isolations. Genes may have traveled slowly, and not every gene is found everywhere. In some cases, there might even be gene mutations that did not make it past a very local, family/clan disbursment. However, any gene that could be identified as having a high preponderance across a supposed race also appears in the population of the other supposed races.

For example, in sub-Saharan Aftrica there is a definite advantage to having heavily pigmented skin. This lead to their being a definite survival advantage for the genes causing this skin. Nonetheless, there is and apparently always has been a small amount of several of the genes that lead to lighter skin color.

Where I refered to "genetically isolated" groups, I really meant separate breeding populations. I didn't mean that each group would have genes unique to it. I guess I should have made my meaning more clear.

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by JohnM2433
Facial features in general, I suppose. They may vary widely within a race, but the same thing is true of skin color. A trait may not be common to all members of a race, but it may be far more common in some races than others.

Outside of epicanthic eye-folds, I can't think of a facial feature that isn't found world-wide among native populations.

A feaure simply being "far more common" implies that is not a fearure that can be used to determine race.

Again, I just don't think we can reasonably equate race with skin color. People of the same race don't all share the same skin color any more than similarly colored races share the same average color.

I agree, which is why I don't believe that there is a valid classification of human beings by "race". In practical terms, thogh, skin color is the detemining factor.

Where I refered to "genetically isolated" groups, I really meant separate breeding populations. I didn't mean that each group would have genes unique to it. I guess I should have made my meaning more clear.

My point was that there are no separate breeding populations, expect for an evolutionary small period of time between the Old and New World. That's why there aren't ay unique genes: they get spread by interbreeding.

[ranskaldan]

The human species is far from genetically homogeneous. If you're against the concept of "race", how would you describe the genetic variations within this species? How would you make conclusions about, say, what conditions cause the evolution of epicanthic folds, if you can't even describe which populations the epicanthic folds can be found in the first place?

The human races is like a spectrum of color that runs from red to orange to yellow to green to blue to violet. There is no single "dividing line" of course, but that doesn't render words like "red" or "green" obsolete.

[Viking Berserk]

So I'm not a white New Zealander, I'm an Oceanian!

well, if you are "white". then your ancestors probably immigrated from europe.

[Viking Berserk]

as from looking at the poll, there are no black people in here... thats wierd...

[Viking Berserk]

you're still going to distinguish Indo-Europeans and Semites??

It's two different races.

As i've seen u put up a whole new list of different peoples.

well, the indo-europeans are not just one race, but many different:

latin, aryan, celtic, slavic, greek, etc...

[Dinner]

It should be pointed out that you folks are really talking about cutural groups and not racial groups. The two often share a corrolation but are must certainly not related.

[Viking Berserk]

???

there are differencies between latins and germanics.
u can even see it.

[Thorgal]

latin, aryan, celtic, slavic, greek, etc

Aryan? what is it?

—Holland’s Pliny—The region of the Arianes, all scorched and senged with the parching heate of the Sunne. (Given the latitude of the region described it would be physically impossible for this region to be Scandinavian/Nordic.)

—Sir W. Jones’ Ordin—All those tribes of men, who sprang from the mouth, the arm, the thigh and the foot of Brahma (Hinduism, the creator God—chief member if the triad also including Vishnu and Shiva) but who became outcasts by having neglected their duties are called Dasyus, or plunderers, whether they speak the language of the Mlechch’has or that of the Aryas.

—Based on historical evidence, ancient Indian and Iranian members of families called themselves Aryan. Applied to the family of languages, which include Sanskrit (ancient Indic language that is the language of Hinduism and the classical language of India), Zend, Persian, Greek, Latin, Celtic, Teutonic and Slavonic. Used prominently to distinguish Aryan languages from non-Aryan languages of India.

—In an idea current in the 19th century of an Aryan race corresponding to a definite Aryan language was taken up by nationalistic historical and romantic writers. Aryan was given significant importance by de Gobineau who linked it with the theory of the essential inferiority of certain races.

—That all the other Aryan vernaculars are variants of Hindi, caused by the influence of non-Aryan communities. Modern Languages E. Indies—The Aryans advanced down the basins of the Indus (river of South Central Asia flowing through North India and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea. Its valley was the site of a civilization from 2500-1500 B.C.) and the Ganges (river of North India and Bangladesh flowing to the Bay of Bengal).

—H.S. Chamberlain’s Foundations 19th Century—Anthropologists, ethnographers and even historians, theologians, philologists and legal authorities find the idea "Aryan" more and more unavoidable…though it were proved that there never was an Aryan race in the past, yet we desire in the future that there may be one.

—W. Norman Brown’s The Swastika—A study of the nazi claims of its Aryan Origin. Hitler’s Mein Kampf—describes the exact opposite of Aryan as a Jew.

—In Nazism and neo-Nazism, a non-Jewish Caucasian, especially one of Nordic type, supposed to be part of a master race. Reintroduced under the Nazi regime (1933-1945) applied to inhabitants of Germany of non-Jewish extraction.


Which do you refer? maybe the last one?

[Viking Berserk]

cut the nazi thing, its not a part of the discussion.
aryan= germanic. (can be characterized with blue eyes)

[Sandman]

aryan= germanic. (can be characterized with blue eyes)

My brother has blue eyes. I have green/brown eyes. Are we different races then?

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Viking Berserk
cut the nazi thing, its not a part of the discussion.
aryan= germanic. (can be characterized with blue eyes)

What about the Celts?

What about the British, who are Teutonic in language, but has absorbed quite a bit of Latin and Celtic blood?

What about the Austrians, for that matter, who are Alpine (and not Nordic)?

What about the Balts? (Lithuanians and Latvians)

What about Belgium? The Flemings in the North are Germanic in language, while the Walloons in the South are not. How genetically different are they?

On the other hand, what about France, with huge amounts of Celtic and Frankish (Teutonic) genetic input?

What about the Finns? They are not Germanic in language, but their genetic makeup is very much Nordic, like Swedes and Danes and Norwegians.

As you can see, a word like "Aryan" is very, very... meaningless. It applies to the Scandinavians and Germans, could apply to the Finns, Brits, Austrians and Dutch, may or may not apply to the French, Balts, Celts, by another definition could apply to the Iranians, Indians, or could even be the Romans, Greeks, and Slavs. So, why use such a vague word, that also has nasty connotations left over in it from WW2?

[Thorgal]

aryan= germanic. (can be characterized with blue eyes)

I have blue eyes, but i am from south Spain, am i "aryan"?

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
The human species is far from genetically homogeneous.

The supposed "races" are about as far from being homogenous.

If you're against the concept of "race", how would you describe the genetic variations within this species? How would you make conclusions about, say, what conditions cause the evolution of epicanthic folds, if you can't even describe which populations the epicanthic folds can be found in the first place?

Well, if I needed to discuss the populations that developed epicanthic eyefolds, I would sa "the people who developed epicanthic eyefolds". While most people associate this trait as "of the Asian race", not every native of this supposed "Asian race" has these eyefolds. Thus, bring the supposed "Asian race" into the discussion merely obfuscates the isues.

The human races is like a spectrum of color that runs from red to orange to yellow to green to blue to violet. There is no single "dividing line" of course, but that doesn't render words like "red" or "green" obsolete.

I hav no objection to referring to people as heavily or lightly pigmented, with or without certain eye shapes, etc. It's the attempt to lump several independent characteristics into a concept of "race" that I artificial, useless, and (least importantly) harmful.