|
|
Post by zemelmete on Jan 18, 2005 14:00:42 GMT -5
Yes, I can explain. My father is latvian after nationality ( more than 90% european) and mother is khanty (about 60% asian and 40 % european). If to take these together, result is about 1/3 asian.
|
|
|
|
Post by Human on Jan 18, 2005 14:13:12 GMT -5
reveals a lot about the limitations of the identifiers.  but it reveals also the philosophical limitations of the classifications. after all, when looking back at skeletons and fossil remains, researchers have NOT found what should be expected to be the most basic of notions: which remains are fully human or not !   some argue neanderthals, e.g, were another type of homo sapiens, others that they were just another race, and some even put them at a separate total different branch of human evolution. where does small begin? where does big begin? when do we start reading? when has one get old? certainty is a complex concept. a blonde finish with Y chromossome uralic ancestry is more caucasoid than a brown skinned, narrow faced, prominent nosed, curly haire, typical jewish type? where would Elvis Presley be placed? according to the us legislation he could have the legal protection assured to native americans, but yet his ancestry is by far mostly caucasoid. Chuck Norris looks fully white, but yet he is no much more caucasoid than a mulatto who is half black half white and who looks nearly entirely black. |
|
|
|
Post by zemelmete on Jan 19, 2005 4:00:46 GMT -5
Yes I agree. In this US document are many gap.
Where would be asian indians placed? Are they white or black?
And gypsies? White? But in many european countries they are considered as "black".
And kazakhs? Are they east-asians? But they originally are from western asia! "Mongoloid" isn't the same thing as "east-asian".
And icelandian singer Bjork? How would be she classified?
|
|
