Physical Variation of the Mongoloid Race

[Yaaaahhh]

Do Mongoloids have the most Phenotype variation among the main human sub-species? Mongoloids can be found from Europe, Asia, the Pacific Islands, and North and South America, and all have specific look. What are all the Phenotypes and Variations found in the Mongoloid sub-race?

[Josh]

Yaaaahhh said:

Europe

A few Europeans have small Mongoloid admixture, but I greatly doubt that there are pure Mongoloids native to Europe.

[Yaaaahhh]

Ummmmm Bjork?


lol, just kidding, yeah you're right. Europe dosen't have any "Pure" Mongoloids, so nevermind that.

[zemelmete]

Some mongoloid subraces:
1. Arctic (eskimo, chucki)
2. Northern asian
3.Central asian
4. East asian
5. oSutheast asian
6. Amerindian

These are main mongoloid groups

[Yaaaahhh]

zemelmete said:

Some mongoloid subraces:
1. Arctic (eskimo, chucki)
2. Northern asian
3.Central asian
4. East asian
5. oSutheast asian
6. Amerindian

These are main mongoloid groups

But that's inaccurate. That's like Saying Caucasoid Subraces are Europe, Middle East, India, and Northern Africa. Caucasoid is broken down even further into Alpine, Borreby, Mediterranean, Nordic, Dinaric etc. I believe there are subraces within Amerindian (I'm sure the plain Indians are different in appearence from a South American tribe). Also the same goes for East, Northern and Southeast Asian.

[Faelcind]

Saying Caucasoid comes from those regions is not innacurate, and dividing them into grouping of regions like that is much more consistent with fact then the arbitrary sub racial groupings of authors like coon, Borreby for instance is clearly nothing but description of a phenotype seen in nothern european ie nordic populations it is not valid phylogenetic unit.

[Yaaaahhh]

Faelcind said:

Saying Caucasoid comes from those regions is not innacurate, and dividing them into grouping of regions like that is much more consistent with fact then the arbitrary sub racial groupings of authors like coon, Borreby for instance is clearly nothing but description of a phenotype seen in nothern european ie nordic populations it is not valid phylogenetic unit.

Hmmm okay, you seem to know more about these stuff then I do, so I guess I'll take your words for it. So what are the differences in appearence from those different Mongoloid subraces?

[mike2]

I empathize but disagree, Faelcind. The Borreby and Nordic types are as distinct from one another as Brunn is to Irano-Afghan. I don't think Coon's types are as inaccurate as you would have them, Fael. Whether or not his types can be called "subraces" is certainly debatable, but they are still relevant as types, whatever the genetic record may be. That's how I feel about it anyway.

The only problem I have with Coon is he put too much focus on the Caucasoids. I would have loved it if he would have given a list of Mongoloid, Congoid, and Australoid types, too. Capoids aren't that important, so I don't mind them so much. But as for the other three, they are very significant and I think they deserve more attention. Without professionals like Coon to lay the groundwork, we can only rely on silly Nordicists like McCollough to give us ideas, which is sad of course. At least we have Baker's classifications to work with, though.

I will concede that some of it is arbitrary and is a matter of opinion. I thought it was especially bold of Coon to espouse that the races obtained sapience at different points in time. And we know now that the Atlanto-Mediterraneans fit more into the Upper Paleolithic branch than Neolithic. Regardless of some of these errors, I am still more inclined to believe in the distinction between Brunns and Borrebies and Cordeds and Danubians than I am in simplifying the white race into Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean categories. Nordicists love those categories. It's so simple for them to argue anybody who is blonde-headed and blue-eyes must be Nordic. I don't believe it's that simple. I believe McCollough's Nordish type is fictional and socially-motivated.

I will discuss what I know of Mongoloids types later when I have more time on my hands. Adieu.

[Springa]

I have a bit of a problem with calling Amerindians "Mongoloid". I think they're a separate, but related group.
Also, there's plenty of variation between them.

[mike2]

I have often too wondered what makes the Amerindians Mongoloid. I believe it is the shape of the skull. Facial features can be superficial and misleading but the skeleton never lies.

And it's true that the Amerindians have much great variation in and of themselves but I still think a common origin can be traced for them. Remember also that Australoids may have played a small part in the formation of the Amerindians.

[mike2]

That's a very good explanation, human2. I think the hawk nose and reddish brown complexion of many Amerindians throws people off, too. I wish more research would be done on variation between the Amerindians themselves. For instance, why can the Californian Indians grow facial hair? Do the snub-nosed and hawk-nosed Amerinds have a common ancestry in Asia or did those traits arise comparatively recently in history?

I think the same type of logic can be applied to the Aethiopids, who although they superficially have some marked Congoid features on the outside and Cavalli-Sforza has lead us to believe Ethiopians have more sub-Saharan blood than Caucasoid, the obvious Caucasoid cast in the Aethiopid skull speaks for itself. It is a definite hybrid type in my opinion.

[Faelcind]

Mike said:

I empathize but disagree, Faelcind. The Borreby and Nordic types are as distinct from one another as Brunn is to Irano-Afghan. I don't think Coon's types are as inaccurate as you would have them, Fael. Whether or not his types can be called "subraces" is certainly debatable, but they are still relevant as types, whatever the genetic record may be. That's how I feel about it anyway.

The only problem I have with Coon is he put too much focus on the Caucasoids. I would have loved it if he would have given a list of Mongoloid, Congoid, and Australoid types, too. Capoids aren't that important, so I don't mind them so much. But as for the other three, they are very significant and I think they deserve more attention. Without professionals like Coon to lay the groundwork, we can only rely on silly Nordicists like McCollough to give us ideas, which is sad of course. At least we have Baker's classifications to work with, though.

I will concede that some of it is arbitrary and is a matter of opinion. I thought it was especially bold of Coon to espouse that the races obtained sapience at different points in time. And we know now that the Atlanto-Mediterraneans fit more into the Upper Paleolithic branch than Neolithic. Regardless of some of these errors, I am still more inclined to believe in the distinction between Brunns and Borrebies and Cordeds and Danubians than I am in simplifying the white race into Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean categories. Nordicists love those categories. It's so simple for them to argue anybody who is blonde-headed and blue-eyes must be Nordic. I don't believe it's that simple. I believe McCollough's Nordish type is fictional and socially-motivated.

I will discuss what I know of Mongoloids types later when I have more time on my hands. Adieu.

MikeTH you have got to get your brain unwrapped of Coon, check the coon is outdated thread he is exactly that his theory that humans passed into a human phase at different times wasn't brave it was ridicilous. As are his huge number of classifications, Bruenn Borreby and Nordic are just idealized phenotypes, they have not been shown by any subsequent analysis to have any validity. He was took natural phenotype variations and in single monoplytic population and called them seperate races, biological he could hardly be more ridicilous. Have you ever heard of multiple sub species living together and interbreeding yet maintaining themselves in any other species?

I think the classification of Amerindians as mongloids is questionable they are clearly derived in the main part from mongloid ancestors but have for the most part been devoloping seperately for 10,000 years. Their facial architecture is more pronounced then mongloids clear its not just the fat deposits. I tend to think that Southeast mongloids often look very similar to amerindians, probably because the share a less derived mongloid phenotype with austroloid admixture.

[mike2]

Okay and touché. ;D

Coon wasn't the only one to recognize the Brunn and Borreby types as distinct from Nordics and such. Angel and Hooton, very respected anthropologists that Dienekes likes to bring into the foray a lot on his site, agreed with Coon about many of the Caucasoid types, though they of course decided to include Atlanto-Med as a UP type instead of a Neolithic one and a couple other minor variations. Yeah, maybe the genetic age will completely invalidate many of the types as having any real racial significance. But until that day comes, I still like 'em just for their descriptive value.

[Faelcind]

You realize all those guys wrote 50 years ago right. There were 34 subspecies of wolves recognized in north america at that time now theres seven, that level of division of descriptive division of populations has simply not stood up to large multivariate analyses not to mention being crushed by genetics. There fine as descriptive types, I definetly look like bruenn/atlantidish, its not biological significant.

[mike2]

Meh, I know very little about genetics so I won't bother arguing with you about it. I would be just wasting my energy.

Instead, I want to get back to talking about the various Mongoloid types. I think they deserve some attention.

These are the most recognizable types, or at least the ones in widest circulation that I have access to:

Scheele's Mongoloid Types:
I found a book by this guy at my school library and thought it was interesting to see the opinions of an apparently little-known anthropologist.
1.) Indonesian-Malay
-includes Malays and Indonesians (duh)
-partially hybridized with Australoids (no surprise there)
2.) Arctic Mongoloid
-includes Siberians and Eskimos
-is this essentially the same as the Tungid type? I ask because Baker also included some Mongol tribes.
3.) Classic Mongoloid
-includes all the stereotypical East Asian folk: the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, etc.
-I assumed it also included the Altaic Mongoloids, like the Mongols, Turks, and Manchus but I believe Baker says something about Tungid Mongols. I also know full well that many Central Asians are by no means full-blooded Mongoloids.
4.) North American Indian
-I think Scheele separated these two not on basis of geography so much but on which continent showed the most of a certain facial feature, in this case the hawk-nose for North Amerinds even though he knows not all North American Indians are hawk-nosed.
-he attributes the hawk nose to Irano-Afghan admixture, but I don't believe this anymore than I believe the Ainu or Polynesians are Caucasoid...
5.) South American Indian
-this is basically his way of saying "snub-nosed Amerinds" even though he knows not all South American Indians are snub-nosed

I should note that Scheele, like Coon, is quite an outdated source when it comes to peoples we commonly consider Mongoloid now for obvious reasons. He believed like many during the time he wrote the book that the Ainu, Polynesians, Australian aborigines, and so on were Caucasoid and included them in his Caucasoid classification. He wrote the book before Coon's advent of the Capoid, Congoid, and Australoid so naturally he was using the Big Three classification (Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid). Instead of giving the Khoisan their own race, he grouped them with Negroids. He did the same with the Melanesians. I think if he knew that Ainu were Mongoloids he would have given them their own type and if he knew the Polynesians were Mongoloid he probably would included them in his Indonesian-Malay group.

McCulloch's Mongoloid Types:
Essentially adapted from Baker, I believe. Or was it Coon? I think it's Baker. Yeah, it's gotta be him. I also know McCulloch and the folk at SNPA are Nordicist morons, but McCulloch's site is the only source I have on Baker's classifications.
1.) Northeast Asian
-various subraces in China, Manchuria, Korea and Japan
2.) Southeast Asian
-various subraces in Indochina, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines, some partly hybridized with Australoids
3.) Micronesian-Polynesian
-hybridized with Australoids
4.) Ainuid
-remnants of aboriginal population in northern Japan
5.) Tungid
-Mongolia and Siberia, Eskimos
6.) Amerindian
-American Indians; various subraces

Not surprisingly, these classifications don't really take into account the presumed Uralian Mongoloid type that only exists today as a hybrid component in the composite make-up of the Lapps and Ladogans.

Baker's Sinid (which McCulloch doesn't mention) and Tungid types are a little confusing to me. I don't have access to Baker's book so I don't know exactly what he had to say about them. I've just heard from people that the Tungid type is primitive looking whereas the Sinid appears more evolved or some such thing.

Whatever the best classification system is, I've got to admit the Mongoloids are a lot less stressful and simpler to discuss than the Caucasoid race, perhaps the most physically variable race on the earth.