Question about negroid race « Thread Started on May 3, 2005, 6:28pm »
Hello, I wanted to know something about the negroid race and sub-races. This post on another forum was censored five minutes after it was posted. I hope that here it will live longer.
So, I was wondering if the australoids was part of the negroid race, or if it was a human race of it's own ? I was also wondering if the caploid people where considered as negroids, but not congoids (usual negro-subsahariens ?).
I hope this question is comprehensive, since some racial aspects are not too familiar to me, and my english skills are not that high.
Re: Question about negroid race « Reply #1 on May 3, 2005, 6:30pm »
No, Australoids and Capoids are not Negroids. They are in a league of their own. Don't let the dark skin fool you. It's easy to see a primitive Caucasian face in an Australian aborigine, but you'd be hard-pressed to find one in a Negro.
There are five major races recognized today: Capoid, Australoid, Congoid (or Negroid), Mongoloid, and Caucasoid.
In the past, Capoids were considered Negroids, but ever since the days of Coon and even before I would imagine, people have realized that the Khoisan are different enough from Congoids that they deserve to have their own type. Australoids show great regional variation (some have woolly hair, some have hawk noses, some have supraorbital ridges, some have ringleted hair, etc.) but they are all still recognizably Australoid.
Re: Question about negroid race « Reply #2 on May 3, 2005, 6:34pm »
Quote:
No, Australoids and Capoids are not Negroids. They are in a league of their own. Don't let the dark skin fool you. It's easy to see a primitive Caucasian face in an Australian aborigine, but you'd be hard-pressed to find one in a Negro.
There are five major races recognized today: Capoid, Australoid, Congoid (or Negroid), Mongoloid, and Caucasoid.
Thanks for that quick answer. I could use some documentation about these people. I never taught that more than 3 sub-species existed.
Re: Question about negroid race « Reply #3 on May 3, 2005, 6:46pm »
Quote:
Thanks for that quick answer. I could use some documentation about these people.
There are all kinds of sources out there. Just be wary that terminology differs and that there are some bad apples out there who spread misinformation. So always look for a second opinion if you think some info is questionable.
I can't recite any links off the top of my head dealing with the Negroids, Australoids, and Capoids, though I can classify them in a nutshell for you, if you'd like. I'm more than happy to share what I've learned.
Capoids 1.) Khoid (Hottentots) 2.) Sanid (Bushmen) Australoids 1.) Negritoid 2.) Veddoid 3.) Jomonoid 4.) Papuan-Melanesian 5.) Australian Congoids/Negroids 1.) Paleonegrid (I sometimes call 'em Congids because it rolls off the tongue better) 2.) Sudanid (most West Africans) 3.) Nilotid (Nilotes) 4.) Aethiopid (Ethiopians, Somalis, etc.) 5.) Bantid (Bantus) 6.) Bambutid (Pygmies)
Quote:
I never taught that more than 3 sub-species existed.
Indeed, in the past there were only three races: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. But with more information and a little common sense, things are considerably more complicated now.
I noticed that you used the word "sub-species." Well, races are not sub-species at all, they're just different... breeds. In order for something to be a subspecies it is assumed that it cannot mate outside of its own subspecies. But because an Australian aborigine can mate with a Swede just as much as it could with its own kind, that's more than enough evidence to not consider races as subspecies, no matter how different some of the races might seem from each other. All human beings can reproduce with each other so therefore they are all of the same species. There are human races, but not human sub-species. This is why Coon is abhorred by so many people here. He claimed that races were sub-species. People look at his ideas about the origin of races and don't even bother to consider the good information he has given us, which is too bad. But that's another issue altogether.
Joined: Jan 2004 Gender: Male Posts: 2,585 Location: Caput Mundi, Hispania
Re: Question about negroid race « Reply #4 on May 3, 2005, 7:07pm »
Mike, wouldn´t you agree that the Australoid race is the most under-rated race on earth? I mean, it stretches from the southern tip of the Arabian peninsula (in residual form) to the Pacific. It´s one of the oldest races, and is the substrate of much of South and South East Asian populations, not to mention Micronesia and Polynesia. There are probably more Australoid genes around the globe than Negroid ones. And still, Australoids are generally ignored, even by geneticists and other specialists.
Re: Question about negroid race « Reply #5 on May 3, 2005, 7:14pm »
Quote:
Mike, wouldn´t you agree that the Australoid race is the most under-rated race on earth? I mean, it stretches from the southern tip of the Arabian peninsula (in residual form) to the Pacific. It´s one of the oldest races, and is the substrate of much of South and South East Asian populations, not to mention Micronesia and Polynesia. There are probably more Australoid genes around the globe than Negroid ones. And still, Australoids are generally ignored, even by geneticists and other specialists.
Most definitely. I couldn't agree with that assessment more, eufrenio. It shows that there is political and social consideration in the study of race. Australoids are overlooked in my opinion because they are easy to sweep under the rug. They are probably also the most dehumanized. The "Black Yemeni" Veddoids/Negritoids of southern Arabia are treated like dirt by the Orientalids. Australian aborigines were considered scarcely more than two-legged animals, relics of a past age by the Darwinian-minded settlers of Australia. The Dravidians, who have a heavy Veddoid component, are looked down upon generally by racist Aryan espousers as the lowest of all men.
But because there are so few Australoids out there with power or prestige, I suppose many people think that they aren't worth study. The situation would have been similar with tribal black Africans centuries ago.
Re: Question about negroid race « Reply #6 on May 3, 2005, 9:47pm »
Quote:
And still, Australoids are generally ignored, even by geneticists and other specialists.
Not Spencer Wells, he seems extremely egger to study Aboriginal Aboriginals. From what I gather scientist are genuinely interested in studying indigenous humans because they hold the key to human migrations, and settlements. Remember, at one point we were all indigenous people. Sometimes it’s hard to test indigenous people because social factors get in the way. Tribal Leaders object to testing, due to superstition, or a fear for their survival. Some governments deny testing of indigenous people, out of fear that the study might grant the IP ethnic rights. If you consider Veddoid as a type of Australoid, then they are an exception to the Rule. They have been tested repeatedly many times over, simply because there is no real social barrier to them. The other alleged Australoids, don’t have this type of freedom, so right now is hard to see how they fit in the big picture of human history.
Re: Question about negroid race « Reply #7 on May 3, 2005, 10:16pm »
There's a relatively popular site out there dedicated to the Andamans and it informed me that Negritoes are difficult to study because people aren't allowed anywhere near them by the government.
Re: Question about negroid race « Reply #8 on May 3, 2005, 10:36pm »
Quote:
There's a relatively popular site out there dedicated to the Andamans and it informed me that Negritoes are difficult to study because people aren't allowed anywhere near them by the government.
This is very true. Diseases introduced by Main Land humans, is one reason for their near extinction. Being isolated on a tiny island for thousands of years carries a high price. When the Andamans see a helicopter they instinctively point their arrow at it. People want to see the Andamanders, but the Andamanders don’t want to see the people. Many people wish for their preservation, so it’s in everyone’s interest to leave them alone. The government realize this, so they enforce laws to preserve the Andamans. However it is inevitable that one day they will go extinct. The Tsunami could have wiped them out, if they were near the coast.
Re: Question about negroid race « Reply #9 on May 4, 2005, 12:58am »
Quote:
I noticed that you used the word "sub-species." Well, races are not sub-species at all, they're just different... breeds. In order for something to be a subspecies it is assumed that it cannot mate outside of its own subspecies.
I am stunned that someone on human biology board could state such complete misundersanding of basic taxonomic principles. The defination of subspecies is a morphological or genetically distinct geographical ecological varient of a species, part of the defination is that it is interfertile with other members of the same species otherwise they would be seperate species. How could there could be level of taxonomic distinctions below species that has the exact same defination as species?
I respect you a great deal mike though we have our dissagreement but you need to get a grounding in genereal biology if you want to understand human biology. Then you might understand the contempt coon is held in by modern anthropologists.
Biologist consider race a synonym for sub species. Most forensic and morphological human biologists beleive in human races and growing number of genetecists agree, still it is completely incorrect to claim there is widely accepted scientific break down of human races.
Re: Question about negroid race « Reply #10 on May 4, 2005, 3:54am »
It seems that there is a problem with the "sub-species". In french I always used "sous-espèce" as a replacement for race - that is politically incorrect - and I always saw people using race and subs-species as synonyms. So, what is correct or incorrect ? Anyway, I saved the three about the australoids, negroids, etc.
Re: Question about negroid race « Reply #11 on May 4, 2005, 5:03am »
That's not really fair, Faelcind, because I'm not a biologist nor have I ever claimed to be. I came into the study of "human biodiversity" through the back door. Sorry if I'm wrong about the use of the term. I had always thought of a subspecies as carrying an implication of being so specialized and evolved in a certain direction that it would be difficult or unwise for it to reproduce with members of the species from which it originally stemmed, but whatever. Kind of like the case with the so-called Neanderthal Man, it's certainly possible that it could mate with Cro-Magnon, but I still think the birth rate success would be lower than if it mated with its own kind, but I don't know.
I think race is a much better term anyway. I don't know. I just think calling races "sub-species" is a bit... dehumanizing. Race seems more indefinite and races can exist on all kinds of different levels. I think sub-species sounds like the races are set in stone. Though I appreciate being corrected because I obviously had the wrong impression of the word, though I had to have gotten that impression from somewhere. I must have picked that definition up by reading the works of some politically correct race denier.
Anyway, I still don't appreciate the Coon-bashing. You act like he's some great Satan that should be rebuked for everything he wrote just because he believed in a few ridiculous ideas. In fact, I had always thought your contempt for him came from the fact that he called races "subspecies," but I was obviously wrong about that. Coon wasn't a racist nor was he a Nordicist (if anything he was a Mediterraneanist). He wasn't any kind of idealist either, just a product of his age. His book the Origin of Races can be completely ignored because it is so outdated, but his Races of Europe is still great reading for classification purposes, even if you don't like him or trust all the info.
Re: Question about negroid race « Reply #12 on May 4, 2005, 1:00pm »
Mike the Briton I don' think it unfair to expect someone who appears to have studied racial science extensively to also have a broad base in other biology. Its completely neccesary to adequately understand human biology. I allways found the trust you put in Coon, Dieneker, Hooton and their ilk rather strange but it makes alot more since if you simple haven't been schooled in the rest of the field. You can't possible make the determination of whether those sources are reliable if you don't have a good understanding of biological science and how it is done in genereal.
Originally sub-species was simply the scientific word for race. Older sub-species definations describe a subspecies as a "geographical race". To biologists race = sub species and thats why so many scholars have insisted that human races don't exist. There argument was human groups were not distinct enough biologicall to qualify as sub-species there for no such thing as biological races. I allways thought that was bullshit as most sub-species are only minimally distinct from each other.
The neanderthall analogy brings up a good point because sub-species is actually a conterversial term in modern biology, because it has been used to describe include widely divergent groups like neanderthalls and modern humans, or only slightly distinct groups like wolf sub-species. Some biologists have suggested that adding the term semi species to describe the widely divergent groups like neanderthalls and humans or eurasian and north american elk. A larger groups has advocated dropping the sub-specific taxonomic level alltogether. Most scientists at this point ignore sub-species cause studies have found them to have little biological significance which is one of the main reason I doubt that human races are very significant biologically.
I beleive that their are human sub species. Mongloids are easily as morphological distinct from caucasoids or australoids as Canis lupus nubilus(the american plains wolf) is from C. lupus occidentalis(the western wolf) or C. lupus arctos(the arctic wolf) and more so genetically.
Re: Question about negroid race « Reply #13 on May 4, 2005, 1:20pm »
Okay. I just got the impression somewhere and somewhen that there was a major difference between a subspecies and a race, but I stand corrected.
As for Coon, Hooton, Angel, and all the gang, I've never ever seen any of those individuals refuted completely. The only good criticism I've seen of the physical anthropologists is that much of the information they gave is outdated and that they themselves were products of their time. Most of them were just building on the works of others.
For instance, Gunther was a blatant Nordicist and it shows in his writing, but just because he was a bad apple doesn't mean the information he gave about the racial composition of Germany, for instance, is faulty. Same with Coon and the others. Back then they thought the Ainu was a Caucasian type. They had no way of knowing the Ainu are a Mongoloid-Australoid mix.
I just don't think it's wise to condemn a whole body of work based on a few things that rattle your nerves. I think it's best to weed out the bad information and then revise the good information into something coherent.
Re: Question about negroid race « Reply #14 on May 4, 2005, 3:38pm »
I know that coons methodology has been extensively criticized,(not sure about the others) data gathering techniques have changed over time. I think its best to take even his data with grain of salt and unless your qualified to analysize his morphometric data I think its foolish to try and use him as source. Especially when your taking about his specific theories as you often do about the origin of different sub races.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
Logged
![[avatar]](http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/949/fredflintstone2400018xm.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v205/Rafe_Kelley/Avatarwolf1.jpg "[avatar]"){kind=avatar}
