|
|
Post by mike2 on Jun 17, 2005 4:42:07 GMT -5
The Brasilids are those Amerinds with those stupid-looking bowl haircuts. It would be difficult to confuse them for anything else, I think.   |
|
|
|
Post by Ponto Hardbottle on Jun 17, 2005 4:51:01 GMT -5
Those Amerindians are very variable for mongoloids. What is your reasoning for the light pigmentation of some of the Siberians compared to the other Asians like the Asian Inuit? I just love the Tungus, they have mean, cool eyes. Now that is what I call epicanthic folds. Maybe a series of diagrams like Venn diagrams showing the maximal presence of each type of mongoloid and the overlaps, as each group blends into its neighbors.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Jun 17, 2005 4:54:18 GMT -5
I'll be frank: It's not my reasoning. I'm just copying what somebody else wrote.
|
|
|
|
Post by zemelmete on Jun 17, 2005 5:03:58 GMT -5
Wow, great post Mike the Briton!
|
|
|
|
Post by zemelmete on Jun 17, 2005 5:17:35 GMT -5
 This woman is mixed. By the way she is very beautiful! 2.) Mongolo-Uralic - found west of the Urals in the Great European Plain of Russia and east of the Urals among Western Siberians where it is the strongest.  Characteristics: basically Yenised with noticeable Baltid features, rather low flat face, more often concave nose, rather light pigmentation of hair and eyes for a partially Mongoloid group, soft wavy hair, and thin lips. I am very sorry but this women has nothing to do with Western Siberia. She is obviously sinid, is chinese after nationality and her name is Vanessa Mae. I would never mistake her as person from Western Siberia. And also I have never heard about mongolo-uralic. 3.) Lappish - found in Lappland and the Kola peninsula.  Characteristics: basically Baltid with noticeable Yenised features, dark pigmentation of eyes and hair, short stature, brachycephaly, very low face, concave nose, and an epicanthus sometimes present. Are saami caucasians or they are caucasian-mongoloid mix? |
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jun 17, 2005 6:59:14 GMT -5
2.) Mongolo-Uralic - found west of the Urals in the Great European Plain of Russia and east of the Urals among Western Siberians where it is the strongest. Characteristics: basically Yenised with noticeable Baltid features, rather low flat face, more often concave nose, rather light pigmentation of hair and eyes for a partially Mongoloid group, soft wavy hair, and thin lips. I am very sorry but this women has nothing to do with Western Siberia. She is obviously sinid, is chinese after nationality and her name is Vanessa Mae. I would never mistake her as person from Western Siberia. And also I have never heard about mongolo-uralic. 3.) Lappish - found in Lappland and the Kola peninsula. Characteristics: basically Baltid with noticeable Yenised features, dark pigmentation of eyes and hair, short stature, brachycephaly, very low face, concave nose, and an epicanthus sometimes present. Are saami caucasians or they are caucasian-mongoloid mix? I wonder what type of mongoloid do you refer yourself? I also don't have any idea about mongolo-uralic, but I think you can fit this description: low flat face, more often concave nose, rather light pigmentation of hair and eyes for a partially Mongoloid group, soft wavy hair, and thin lips. I think that's you! What do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by One Humanity on Jun 17, 2005 9:30:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Lycansupreme on Jun 17, 2005 10:01:13 GMT -5
[/img] 2.) Khmer Austrasian - found in the south and west of Indochina. Mixed with Australoids. Characteristics: wavy hair, light brown skin, rare epicanthus frequency, and differs from Vietnamese Austrasian in that the Khmer variant has taller stature and more brachycephaly. [/quote] Light brown skin, what the hell? Cambodians have dark brown skin and sometimes even near-black. They are closer in skin color to people from the India subcontinent than to other East Asians. I have to say this again, do these anthropologists actually TRAVEL to the countries they are supposedly studying? |
|
|
|
Post by Lycansupreme on Jun 17, 2005 10:01:44 GMT -5
I'll be frank: It's not my reasoning. I'm just copying what somebody else wrote. Post the link if you could |
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Jun 17, 2005 10:07:42 GMT -5
1. I think these breakdown of people into various ___ids is just plain retarded. At a certain point, very quickly in grouping people together, classification just breaks down into an orgy fest of people, while smoking weed, giving arbitrary Lord-of-the-Rings names to other people. Why? As lons as some physical features are more common than others in geographically idientifiable groups of people the classification is valid and is a useless tool to undersand reality. What's the difference between this and plants or animals classification? And what could be the instrument alternative to classification to study anthropometry? |
|
|
|
Post by Lycansupreme on Jun 17, 2005 10:10:50 GMT -5
1. I think these breakdown of people into various ___ids is just plain retarded. At a certain point, very quickly in grouping people together, classification just breaks down into an orgy fest of people, while smoking weed, giving arbitrary Lord-of-the-Rings names to other people. Why? As lons as some physical features are more common than others in geographically idientifiable groups of people the classification is valid and is a useless tool to undersand reality. What's the difference between this and plants or animals classification? And what could be the instrument alternative to classification to study anthropometry? Well, the fact that alot of them are completely inaccurate and contradictory to people who have actually seen these people with their own eyes might have something to do with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Lycansupreme on Jun 17, 2005 10:13:39 GMT -5
Light brown skin, what the hell? Cambodians have dark brown skin and sometimes even near-black. They are closer in skin color to people from the India subcontinent than to other East Asians. I have to say this again, do these anthropologists actually TRAVEL to the countries they are supposedly studying? It's this: Some dude hopped off a boat, took a picture of who he thinks is best representative. Some other read the book and got a degree and elaborated on it. Some other dude 20 years later read both dudes and wrote a book with his own theories. 80 years later some dude quote from it like a bible even though there are tons of studies every year after that (published in journals), while people complain that there are no good books. (It's simply more efficient to publish actual studies in peer-reviewed journals rather than writing a book of your own theories.) Sometimes, I laugh. It's so ludicrous... like about "Cro-Magnoids" being "Caucasoids/Siberids" who mixed with Asiatics. After looking at the anthropological, archaeological, genetic, and geological evidence, and considering how many lay people have their bread and butter on the line in believing that, I smirk but keep quite to prevent hurt feelings. Anyway, for anyone interested, here is a modern, accurate depiction of Cro-Magnon morphology: s6.invisionfree.com/orient/index.php?showtopic=269Man, we seriously need to have a native east asian anthropologist to actually do the studies than to rely on some of these pseudo "experts" in the West lol. |
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Jun 17, 2005 10:24:26 GMT -5
Why? As lons as some physical features are more common than others in geographically idientifiable groups of people the classification is valid and is a useless tool to undersand reality. What's the difference between this and plants or animals classification? And what could be the instrument alternative to classification to study anthropometry? Well, the fact that alot of them are completely inaccurate and contradictory to people who have actually seen these people with their own eyes might have something to do with it. Actually the supposed inaccuracy has completely nothing to do with it. Read again. As for your suggestion that a East Asian should study East Asian anthropology seems simplistic at best, and perfectly in line with the naive pc sincretic and racist american conception that women should talk about "women issues" blacks about "black issues" and so on. |
|
|
|
Post by Lycansupreme on Jun 17, 2005 10:30:06 GMT -5
Well, the fact that alot of them are completely inaccurate and contradictory to people who have actually seen these people with their own eyes might have something to do with it. Actually the supposed inaccuracy has completely nothing to do with it. Read again. As for your suggestion that a East Asian should study East Asian anthropology seems simplistic at best, and perfectly in line with the naive pc sincretic and racist american conception that women should talk about "women issues" blacks about "black issues" and so on. Well, it certainly would be alot better than the piss-poor research (if you can even call it that) that currently exists, especially for south east asia. And to think that taxpayer money is being funnelled into these blatanly misleading studies by these so-called "scientists" at some of these universities just blows my mind. |
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Jun 17, 2005 10:34:06 GMT -5
. The breakdown into various ___ids is not scientifically recognized now. That's true. But to me it means we just need to make more accurate and widespread measurements. Even the more studied Caucasoid "subraces" are almost meaningless. I disagree on this. Nothing is too complicate for classification as this would mean its knowledge is impossible. It is just a problem of making better groups and criteria. There is a lot of space for new reasearch in anthropometry. Btw also personalities can and have been be classified, ... we do it all the times is the only human way ... when you say someone or something is childish aren't you classifying? Childish is a category. Can't get rid of them.  |
|
