Post by Agrippa on Jan 3, 2006 20:23:26 GMT -5
Comments from older postings, newly edited:
Its about showing evolutionary tendencies which were or are real in a region - just because people live in the same area, doesnt have to mean they really belong to each other racially, especially if its about the source and evolutionary tendency. F.e. we can look at regions were as farmers live that, as herders this group, low countries this, high that and so on, but they are in the same region, to simply lump them together is oftentimes totally useless because they came from different directions, live in different socioeconomic and cultural, therefore selective regimes. Now in modern states such distinctions are often eliminated by new structures, so especially in the cities and larger agglomerations in general totally different types can meet each other, if they were not brought together by mobility (both spacial and social), settling strategies etc.
But I agree with you that both should be done and I explained how typologies should be made or on what they should base on:
They should use genetic results to explain the make up and physical anthropology to describe racial types. The types, or if you so want feature combinations should include soft parts and bones, head-skull and body features. So at least including pigmentation, hair and skin characteristics, morphological characteristics of the soft parts on the living, height and proportions, bone and cranial features, indices and special characteristics. After this features have been sampled they should be group regionally and for regions it should be looked if there are correlations (f.e. lower CI, higher HLI) inside a population. If you find the same correlations over a wide area, even if the populations are all mixed, you have found types, racial specialisations.
If we look back into prehistory we should find for regional-population specialisations ancient remains for that development, if its just a social specialisation inside a population its more difficult, but usually extreme social specialisations without any other racial base dont occur too often...
To put it simple, higher positive regional and individual feature combinations determine a racial type - f.e. in Sweden is a positive correlation between a narrow face, nose and longer skull, but a negative if looking at brachycephals - broader face and nose. This can be expanded until you have the basic racial types of Europe.
As long as you dont show me such studies or at least studies which speak against the assumed typology its of secondary importance for a racial typology.
So to me, races are just evolutionary tendencies, specialisations, populations, groups, which went through selective filters, they can be, and usually are, genetically related, both because of common source populations and intermixture, but they must not be more related to each other as individuals than to another, closely related but racially differently specialised group.
Another post:
Thats true and not true because it depends on the context you use to calibrate them. F.e. comparing Northern Europe with aequatorial regions, pigmentation is of great importance. But inside a spectrum of a given climatic region with all being more or less adapted to the weather conditions, other things are of much greater importance. Since races are just evolutionary tendencies, adaptations, those features of general importance for a given context and for distinguishing different tendencies should be emphasized. So far genetics are often almost useless if its about racial specialisations, since the autosomal dna and related features of the phenotype are not fully understood and analysed so far.
Modification which doesnt change the genetic base doesnt change race - race is about inherited features combinations. And finally the relative differences are still there, they just changed partly.
Furthermore in a time of some hundred years only the proportions can change inside of the genpool, but thats hardly a new race, it just means shifts towards one or another evolutionary tendency = race. There we are again at what race is about, both the major races and subraces/racial types, variation, developments and evolution inside the species.
Some comments:
Race is no social construct, but can be one - at least certain ideas of it. If "race" is in fact a social construct, than we have to look at what is meant, if its used an ethnosocial designation which has nothing to do with biological realities, than its a pure construct, if it reflects a certain biological reality, a biological unity, evolutionary tendency, then we must consider it as such and not as a "social construct" even if the classifications and emphasis might vary.
Mixture could be, in theory, only good if you would choose certain individuals with very desirable features, then let them mix and finally select all out which have not the desired combination, rather unlikely in humans, though its a common practice with animals. Chances of a bad mixture result are just very high, especially in the following generations, even if excluding genetic affinities, extended kinship and sociocultural-political problems.
Fischer made a good study about the "Rehobother cross-breeds" and what we can see is that in mixed groups the 2nd filial generation shows often the recessive traits again - after simple Mendelian rules, which dont work too often in humans, that would mean a chance of about 25 percent for recessive traits showing up again.
After Gareth:
The basic tendencies:
forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=43330
Only in the centre small groups and individuals approach the "pure form", the "final result of the development" whereas most people show more or less affinities to this or that specialisation.
Its about showing evolutionary tendencies which were or are real in a region - just because people live in the same area, doesnt have to mean they really belong to each other racially, especially if its about the source and evolutionary tendency. F.e. we can look at regions were as farmers live that, as herders this group, low countries this, high that and so on, but they are in the same region, to simply lump them together is oftentimes totally useless because they came from different directions, live in different socioeconomic and cultural, therefore selective regimes. Now in modern states such distinctions are often eliminated by new structures, so especially in the cities and larger agglomerations in general totally different types can meet each other, if they were not brought together by mobility (both spacial and social), settling strategies etc.
But I agree with you that both should be done and I explained how typologies should be made or on what they should base on:
They should use genetic results to explain the make up and physical anthropology to describe racial types. The types, or if you so want feature combinations should include soft parts and bones, head-skull and body features. So at least including pigmentation, hair and skin characteristics, morphological characteristics of the soft parts on the living, height and proportions, bone and cranial features, indices and special characteristics. After this features have been sampled they should be group regionally and for regions it should be looked if there are correlations (f.e. lower CI, higher HLI) inside a population. If you find the same correlations over a wide area, even if the populations are all mixed, you have found types, racial specialisations.
If we look back into prehistory we should find for regional-population specialisations ancient remains for that development, if its just a social specialisation inside a population its more difficult, but usually extreme social specialisations without any other racial base dont occur too often...
To put it simple, higher positive regional and individual feature combinations determine a racial type - f.e. in Sweden is a positive correlation between a narrow face, nose and longer skull, but a negative if looking at brachycephals - broader face and nose. This can be expanded until you have the basic racial types of Europe.
As long as you dont show me such studies or at least studies which speak against the assumed typology its of secondary importance for a racial typology.
So to me, races are just evolutionary tendencies, specialisations, populations, groups, which went through selective filters, they can be, and usually are, genetically related, both because of common source populations and intermixture, but they must not be more related to each other as individuals than to another, closely related but racially differently specialised group.
Another post:
In any Racial Classification system (and everyone here seems to have his own) you have to put more weight on certain features than in others, but you cannot scientifically prove than one feature is more important than the other, so is subjective. As simple as that.
Thats true and not true because it depends on the context you use to calibrate them. F.e. comparing Northern Europe with aequatorial regions, pigmentation is of great importance. But inside a spectrum of a given climatic region with all being more or less adapted to the weather conditions, other things are of much greater importance. Since races are just evolutionary tendencies, adaptations, those features of general importance for a given context and for distinguishing different tendencies should be emphasized. So far genetics are often almost useless if its about racial specialisations, since the autosomal dna and related features of the phenotype are not fully understood and analysed so far.
Modification which doesnt change the genetic base doesnt change race - race is about inherited features combinations. And finally the relative differences are still there, they just changed partly.
Furthermore in a time of some hundred years only the proportions can change inside of the genpool, but thats hardly a new race, it just means shifts towards one or another evolutionary tendency = race. There we are again at what race is about, both the major races and subraces/racial types, variation, developments and evolution inside the species.
Some comments:
Race is no social construct, but can be one - at least certain ideas of it. If "race" is in fact a social construct, than we have to look at what is meant, if its used an ethnosocial designation which has nothing to do with biological realities, than its a pure construct, if it reflects a certain biological reality, a biological unity, evolutionary tendency, then we must consider it as such and not as a "social construct" even if the classifications and emphasis might vary.
Mixture could be, in theory, only good if you would choose certain individuals with very desirable features, then let them mix and finally select all out which have not the desired combination, rather unlikely in humans, though its a common practice with animals. Chances of a bad mixture result are just very high, especially in the following generations, even if excluding genetic affinities, extended kinship and sociocultural-political problems.
Fischer made a good study about the "Rehobother cross-breeds" and what we can see is that in mixed groups the 2nd filial generation shows often the recessive traits again - after simple Mendelian rules, which dont work too often in humans, that would mean a chance of about 25 percent for recessive traits showing up again.
After Gareth:
Guenther on the inheritance of racial features:
"If two races are crossed, a 'mixed race,' breeding true, will result only under special conditions. 'New races can never be born through crossing alone. Crossing can only give rise to new combinations; and the old characteristics do not disappear through crossing only. The disappearance of the old and the making of something really new can only be brought about by selection. The new combinations, therefore, can be so selected and sifted that all those with certain qualities disappear, while those left show certain new combinations. A new race has now come into being as a result of a mixture; the real factors at work were selection and rejection.' The social group which is to keep to the same direction of selection must also be allowed to live for long periods in isolation. It is by a direction of selection continuously maintained in isolation that the rise of races in prehistoric times must be explained; and often human groups, breeding true, that is, races, must have been formed, too, from the mingling of two or more earlier races through selection in a determinate enclosed environment. "
Obviously every Europid type already is a result of specialization and partial selection, characteristic in a way. Specializations are linked with certain combinations that can temporarily vary already within siblings but can also express clear tendencies.
"If two races are crossed, a 'mixed race,' breeding true, will result only under special conditions. 'New races can never be born through crossing alone. Crossing can only give rise to new combinations; and the old characteristics do not disappear through crossing only. The disappearance of the old and the making of something really new can only be brought about by selection. The new combinations, therefore, can be so selected and sifted that all those with certain qualities disappear, while those left show certain new combinations. A new race has now come into being as a result of a mixture; the real factors at work were selection and rejection.' The social group which is to keep to the same direction of selection must also be allowed to live for long periods in isolation. It is by a direction of selection continuously maintained in isolation that the rise of races in prehistoric times must be explained; and often human groups, breeding true, that is, races, must have been formed, too, from the mingling of two or more earlier races through selection in a determinate enclosed environment. "
Obviously every Europid type already is a result of specialization and partial selection, characteristic in a way. Specializations are linked with certain combinations that can temporarily vary already within siblings but can also express clear tendencies.
The basic tendencies:
forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=43330
Only in the centre small groups and individuals approach the "pure form", the "final result of the development" whereas most people show more or less affinities to this or that specialisation.