|
Post by mike2 on May 3, 2005 15:05:10 GMT -5
but dont you people realize caucasoid, negroid, mongoloid, and australoid are made up terms like a bunch of 19th century anthropologists? why do you put so much merit into them? Classifying humans is a game that is never accurate , straightforward data. They are perfectly fine and acceptable terms. Race is family writ large. It is a quantification of people groups into the simplest terms possible, and you're right, it isn't always accurate nor does it ever take on such an attitude of indestructability, because it is a field that acknowledges change as change comes. It just so happens that the largest family groups we can trace with any certainty happen to be what I call the Big Five: the Capoid, Australoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, and Caucasoid. There is much disagreement about subtypes within these races, but the major races have been accepted into anthropology circles since the days Coon drafted the up the Big Five. Let's face it. The major races are a reality. If Steven Martin and Angelina Jolie had a child, Whoopi Goldberg isn't going to pop out. If an Australian aborigine sowed his seed with a Selkup, you're not going to get a Mandingo.
|
|
|
Post by gulereatie on May 3, 2005 15:05:49 GMT -5
It is NOT outdated, it is still used by archeologists and anthropologists, and the study of subraces has not really stopped, it is still VERY useful to discover human migrations when genetics is absent. I can quote you studies done in 2004 using racial terminology like caucasoid. it is outdated only in PCness. ok, believe it if you want. but anyone can make these so called infallible race categories. it's entirely subjective. i see more truth in individuals phenotypes then trying to beclassifying groups.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 3, 2005 15:09:31 GMT -5
ok, believe it if you want. but anyone can make these so called infallible race categories. it's entirely subjective. i see more truth in individuals phenotypes then trying to beclassifying groups. Sure. So? As long as it makes sense, subjectivity doesn't matter in this field because all of it is based on a feeling of uncertainty, anyway. All of us acknowledge that many classifications are arbitrary. But they are evolving everyday to a more coherent system. It's a question of time and the availability of information. Until then we have only to work with what we have and speculation is fair game.
|
|
|
Post by gulereatie on May 3, 2005 15:10:45 GMT -5
They are perfectly fine and acceptable terms. Race is family writ large. It is a quantification of people groups into the simplest terms possible, and you're right, it isn't always accurate nor does it ever take on such an attitude of indestructability, because it is a field that acknowledges change as change comes. It just so happens that the largest family groups we can trace with any certainty happen to be what I call the Big Five: the Capoid, Australoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, and Caucasoid. There is much disagreement about subtypes within these races, but the major races have been accepted into anthropology circles since the days Coon drafted the up the Big Five. Let's face it. The major races are a reality. If Steven Martin and Angelina Jolie had a child, Whoopi Goldberg isn't going to pop out. If an Australian aborigine sowed his seed with a Selkup, you're not going to get a Mandingo. no thats genetics. the truth be told that, every human looks different thus the individual is his own phenotype. anything beyond that, including using your subjective opinions at attempting to break humans into groups, is just impossible. funny thing is, people believe this to be completly infallible. anyone can decide to go make some races. what different does it make.
|
|
|
Post by human2 on May 3, 2005 15:11:23 GMT -5
They are perfectly fine and acceptable terms. Race is family writ large. And the largest family groups we can trace with any certainty happen to be the Big Five: the Capoid, Australoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, and Caucasoid. There is much disagreement about subtypes within these races, but let's face it. The major races are a reality. If Steven Martin and Angelina Jolie had a child, Whoopi Goldberg isn't going to pop out. I rather think in terms of different migration routes and discreet geographic regions blocked by barriers instead of discreet races because 1. The lineages are criss-crossed 2. There is no clear cut lines, as there are intermediate types that have been extinguished by expansions 3. There are people within a population who look like some other population 4. Routes and geographic regions better describe the fluidity and dynamism of what we call race, or genetic or phenotype population in moronic PC talk. no thats genetics. the truth be told that, every human looks different thus the individual is his own phenotype. anything beyond that, including using your subjective opinions at attempting to break humans into groups, is just impossible. funny thing is, people believe this to be completly infallible. anyone can decide to go make some races. what different does it make. You are talking as if there is random variation, when usually this doesn't occur, although it does. You can count on a person from Nigeria looking a certain way. Chances are, he's not going to look like Conan O'Brien.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 3, 2005 15:11:55 GMT -5
Races are regional differences that people in that region share that can be quantified on a larger scale. That's all it is to me.
|
|
|
Post by gulereatie on May 3, 2005 15:14:30 GMT -5
Races are regional differences that people in that region share that can be quantified on a larger scale. how do you define "it" without using subjectivity? for example, sub saharan africans have very dark skin, but lets see, so do southern indians, and many people in the southern asian islands and the australian subcontinent. people with long heads? you can find that all over the world. people with large lips? again, that can be found anywhere. go ahead and try to define. i am a follower of the "each person is a phenotypical individual". trying to divide humans furthur, is entirely subjective. contrary to modern opinion, i think "race" is very much skin color. that is why no one knows what east africans are. that is how "race" started. the people who made the terms caucasian mongoloid and negroid are subjective biased 19th century racist eurocentrics.
|
|
|
Post by human2 on May 3, 2005 15:16:24 GMT -5
Races are regional differences that people in that region share that can be quantified on a larger scale. That's all it is to me. Yeah... I often find people who denounce the existence of race (and those who recognize that reality) to have a misunderstanding of race. They equate race=species, when the rest of us just means a patterned variation when we say race. The irony is that it's these "No-race-exists-you-got-it-you're-racist" types that fail to understand what race means and makes it into more than what it is, a terminological system to account for variation. how do you define "it" without using subjectivity? for example, sub saharan africans have very dark skin, but lets see, so do southern indians, and many people in the southern asian islands and the australian subcontinent. people with long heads? you can find that all over the world. people with large lips? again, that can be found anywhere. go ahead and try to define. Multivariate statistical analysis of gene frequencies, (or measurements and non-metric traits in case of anthropology, osteology) without subjectively or arbitrarily assigning "definitions" to begin the analysis. It's done in all sectors of society... higher mathematics.
|
|
|
Post by Igu on May 3, 2005 15:18:00 GMT -5
ok, believe it if you want. but anyone can make these so called infallible race categories. it's entirely subjective. i see more truth in individuals phenotypes then trying to beclassifying groups. Would you say that the categorization of animals is subjective? Because it's so easy to criticize without knowledge, everyone can classify a bat as a bird.
|
|
|
Post by human2 on May 3, 2005 15:20:25 GMT -5
Would you say that the categorization of animals is subjective? Because it's so easy to criticize without knowledge, everyone can classify a bat as a bird. A bat is not a bird.
|
|
|
Post by human2 on May 3, 2005 15:23:06 GMT -5
There must be a criteria. You have to know what you are talking about. Classifying all humans into the human species and not just say, "It's all random and I can't tell between a zebra and an African" is just plain retarded PC speak. PC is ofr people who don't have the intellectual capability to really understand and who depends on feel good jingoistic philosophies to try to pierce into thing.
|
|
|
Post by gulereatie on May 3, 2005 15:29:31 GMT -5
There must be a criteria. You have to know what you are talking about. Classifying all humans into the human species and not just say, "It's all random and I can't tell between a zebra and an African" is just plain retarded PC speak. PC is ofr people who don't have the intellectual capability to really understand and who depends on feel good jingoistic philosophies to try to pierce into thing. define features then! without being subjective. i think people would be surprised how many people would look different with a pigmentation, or a depigmented. like some east asians can look african . some east africans can look northern european. the list goes on EVERY SINGLE HUMAN looks DIFFERENT! that is a FACT. with the exception of twins, but even so. the only way to not be subjective, is reckognize each human as "race" or, the modern race theory does not exist. which is pretty accurate.
|
|
|
Post by human2 on May 3, 2005 15:42:06 GMT -5
define features then! without being subjective. i think people would be surprised how many people would look different with a pigmentation, or a depigmented. like some east asians can look african . some east africans can look northern european. the list goes on EVERY SINGLE HUMAN looks DIFFERENT! that is a FACT. with the exception of twins, but even so. the only way to not be subjective, is reckognize each human as "race" or, the modern race theory does not exist. which is pretty accurate. There are patterns all over the reality that we know that isn't even detectable by the human mind and we have to use computers and higher mathetimatics to see them. Race, fortunately, is not that hard to see. If anything hard to define doesn't exist, then the modern world would cease to function because everything runs on complex patterns, the stock market for example is built on people crunching numbers to see trends and patterns. That's why people invest, because it's not random. You take your lmited understanding of things and try to apply it to something complex. It's like explaining physics to a 5 year old. That frustrating. Just take my word for it.
|
|
|
Post by Igu on May 3, 2005 16:06:59 GMT -5
A bat is not a bird. of course it is not!!!! you had to understand the irony!
|
|
|
Post by human2 on May 3, 2005 16:19:21 GMT -5
of course it is not!!!! you had to understand the irony! Darn... I missed that. Sorry.
|
|