|
Post by gelaye on Dec 24, 2005 11:59:41 GMT -5
people often mention the division between africans and eurasians, but i find that africans tend to share more similarities with europeans than east asians, in many fields -
not including skin pigmentation and hair texture, negroids and caucasians are more similar looking than mongoloids? although you can blur the lines with certain subgroups......
anyway just a random post, tell me what you think!
|
|
|
Post by Polako on Dec 24, 2005 14:08:02 GMT -5
According to Autosomal DNA tests, West Eurasians (Europeans) are closer to East Asians (Mongoloids) than to sub-Saharan Africans (Negroids). In fact, accordng to Cavalli-Sforza, the north East Asians were the most similar group to Europeans. Here's a study I found on the net just then...it's one of several I've seen that backs up what I said. www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol78No2/jg438.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Dec 24, 2005 14:20:20 GMT -5
Concerning Africans it depends - but typical Negrids are for sure not closer to Europeans than Mongolid East Asians.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Dec 24, 2005 14:50:23 GMT -5
In colonial times spaniards considered amerindians to be closer to europeans than blacks, a 87,5% white 12,5% amerindian person was considered white, but a 87,5% white 12,5% black person was not considered black (he was considered octoroon), because black features remained more generations and were harder to breed out.
maybe even without those tests, the genetic distance was clear in an innate way.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Dec 24, 2005 14:55:23 GMT -5
What type of African's are you talking about ? Negroid Africans(SSA) arent close to Europeans,but the Berbers,Egyptians and East Afrcans are.
|
|
|
Post by aroundtheworld on Dec 24, 2005 15:22:47 GMT -5
In USA, an average medium-light skinned black woman resembles average white woman more-so than a Korean immigrant. That's the only distinction I can see. Some blacks blend into culture in the US whereas an Asian immigrant will stick-out.
Tyra Banks comes to mind with her blended features. She is "black" but put in a group of sorority girls you have to squint to differentiate her.
|
|
|
Post by tonynatuzzi on Dec 24, 2005 15:26:42 GMT -5
How the hell is Tyran Banks indistinguishable in phenotype from a group of White sorority girls. Coon would have never never classified Tyra as a Caucasoid come on are you blind or what come on give me a break are you shitting me.You sound as ridiculous as that other poster who posted a pic of a bunch of Whites and Asians at a table and saying they are all Somalis.
|
|
|
Post by aroundtheworld on Dec 24, 2005 15:34:15 GMT -5
How the hell is Tyran Banks indistinguishable in phenotype from a group of White sorority girls. Coon would have never never classified Tyra as a Caucasoid come on are you blind or what come on give me a break are you shitting me.You sound as ridiculous as that other poster who posted a pic of a bunch of Whites and Asians at a table and saying they are all Somalis. You need to calm your ass down. I never said she was classified as a Caucasoid. What is wrong with you people acting like you have a time bomb stuck up your arses? Settle down and READ what I said. I said if she was in a room with a bunch of sorority girls-which she does RESEMBLE with her "style, dress, and hair"-she would BLEND in with them. Alek Wek would NOT. A Korean street vendor would NOT. BTW YOU sound ridiculous jumping on me for no real reason other than to let off steam and twisting my words. The topic was about being "closely related" and sometimes that can be confused with ASSIMILATION which many blacks are successful at whether you want to accept it or not.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Dec 24, 2005 20:35:46 GMT -5
This sentence in particular isn't really clear though.
|
|
|
Post by tatus on Dec 24, 2005 21:58:24 GMT -5
What type of African's are you talking about ? Negroid Africans(SSA) arent close to Europeans,but the Berbers,Egyptians and East Afrcans are. Don't Aethiopds "East Africans" have some negroid admixture Other East African like Kenyans, Tanzanians masai's don't right? So that makes the SSA negroids
|
|
|
Post by MC anunnaki on Dec 26, 2005 16:44:59 GMT -5
Middle Easterners are rather distinct from Euros and they're closer related than any other racial group so needless to say, "pure" black Africans (including all kinds of subtypes) and "pure" Mongoloids are even more distinct. I guess though that many black Africans share similarites with Euros from the neck and down, but then again, you'll easily find tall, muscular East Asians so...
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Dec 26, 2005 17:16:20 GMT -5
people often mention the division between africans and eurasians, but i find that africans tend to share more similarities with europeans than east asians, in many fields - not including skin pigmentation and hair texture, negroids and caucasians are more similar looking than mongoloids? although you can blur the lines with certain subgroups...... anyway just a random post, tell me what you think! You are partially right. Indeed, in Rosenberg's clustering analyses of human populations the first split is between Western (Eurasian and African) and Eastern (East Asian and American) populations. This is also observed by craniometric data. When populations are clustered into two groups, Mongoloids separate from the rest first, and then Caucasoids are split from Negroids.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Dec 26, 2005 19:52:51 GMT -5
Educate_Me, Americans also considered Indians closer to whites than blacks. I saw a documentary on the famous Lewis and Clarke expedition to map the western part of what became the United States. During the course of the documentary, they said that one of the explorers adopted an Indian and raised him as a white child. He commented that Indians could be civilized, but that blacks were, at bottom, savage. So the English had the same attitude.
P.S.--Genetically, Amerindians are closer to Caucasoids than to negroids. There's a tremendous genetic gulf between sub-Saharans and Caucasoids. Cavalli-Sforza said he was shocked by it. Sub-saharan dna was tens of thousands of years older than Caucasoid dna. The Mongoloids branched off of the Caucasoids--and Amerindians off of the Mongoloid. But all three groups are vastly closer to each other than any are to sub-Saharans (who are vastly older).
|
|
|
Post by Polako on Dec 27, 2005 7:22:55 GMT -5
P.S.--Genetically, Amerindians are closer to Caucasoids than to negroids. There's a tremendous genetic gulf between sub-Saharans and Caucasoids. Cavalli-Sforza said he was shocked by it. Sub-saharan dna was tens of thousands of years older than Caucasoid dna. The Mongoloids branched off of the Caucasoids--and Amerindians off of the Mongoloid. But all three groups are vastly closer to each other than any are to sub-Saharans (who are vastly older). Exactly, I think Cavalli-Sforza even said that the north Chinese could even be considered part of the Caucasoud group based on his analysis. This begs the question: what the hell is Dienekes all about here??? All evidence I've seen points to sub-Saharan Africans being the most distinct group.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Dec 27, 2005 23:00:29 GMT -5
Exactly, I think Cavalli-Sforza even said that the north Chinese could even be considered part of the Caucasoud group based on his analysis. This begs the question: what the hell is Dienekes all about here??? All evidence I've seen points to sub-Saharan Africans being the most distinct group. Incorrect, Rosenberg's studies are quite clear that when individuals are clustered in two groups, the main distinction is between Mongoloids and the rest.
|
|