Race?

[pivoxa15]

This question may be best posted here.

What is the most accepted classification of the different races of the entire world?

I am after the classification according to physical features only.

[russ_watters]

"Accepted" how and by whom? Ie, you are correct to post this in social sciences, since race is not a biologically sound concept.

[glondor]

I think there is 1 class. Human.

[DaveC426913]

I don't know but I think there are three:

African
Asian
Indo-European (Middle Eastern is also included in this group)

I am not sure if Polynesian is considered separate or if it's part of Asian. If separate, it split a long time ago.

[pivoxa15]

"Accepted" how and by whom? Ie, you are correct to post this in social sciences, since race is not a biologically sound concept.

I was after the classification accepted by the majority of scientists like biologists who are pro race classificationists, if there is such a classification.

[pivoxa15]

I think there is 1 class. Human.

I just can't help but notice that people from one particular area (country) look much different to another. However they look alike amongst themselves hence a need for race classification.

[pivoxa15]

I don't know but I think there are three:


Indo-European (Middle Eastern is also included in this group)



What does the indo stand for?

[Moridin]

"Race" is not a biological or scientific term, because there is no objective biological criteria for distinguishing between these so called races. Species can be objectively defined (at least at any given time) as reproductively isolated communities.

I just can't help but notice that people from one particular area (country) look much different to another. However they look alike amongst themselves hence a need for race classification.

Looks can be deceiving. Most variation is within communities, not between.

RACE - The Power of an Illusion (http://www.pbs.org/race/001_WhatIsRace/001_00-home.htm)

[I don't know]

I just can't help but notice that people from one particular area (country) look much different to another. However they look alike amongst themselves hence a need for race classification.- Yellow labradors and black labradors also look different, but they're still the same race.

Like Moridin pointed out, there really isn't a rigid, consistent, systematic way to divide between races - so at least to me, especially in such a hot topic as this is, the question becomes "what's the use?" - to which the answer seems to me to be something like "not much - in fact it might be kind of dangerous, seeing the way many people see science and scientific categories"

But honestly, I don't know more about biology than the average person.

"Race" is not a biological or scientific term, because there is no objective biological criteria for distinguishing between these so called races. Species can be objectively defined (at least at any given time) as reproductively isolated communities.- Not really - for example; there are cases where A can reproduce with B, B can reproduce with C, but A can't reproduce with C. What then?

[DaveC426913]

What does the indo stand for?Eastern Indians and Europeans are part of the same race.

[pivoxa15]

Eastern Indians and Europeans are part of the same race.


The indians originally in America? They look more like Asians?

[DaveC426913]

The indians originally in America? They look more like Asians?
No! Eastern indian! India, Pakistan. etc. They are the same race as Europeans.

And yes, native N. Americans are originally Asian (or is it Polynesian?).

[plutoisacomet]

Your information about human migration patterns seems very middle school like!!!!!!! I hope you guys don't teach Biology or for that matter, Anthropology . These comments are "Watson" like from "Watson & Crick" fame. Shame on you Anglos!!!

[DaveC426913]

Your information about human migration patterns seems very middle school like!!!!!!! I hope you guys don't teach Biology or for that matter, Anthropology . These comments are "Watson" like from "Watson & Crick" fame. Shame on you Anglos!!!
Care to elaborate? I don't recall anyone talking about migration.

[pivoxa15]

No! Eastern indian! India, Pakistan. etc. They are the same race as Europeans.

And yes, native N. Americans are originally Asian (or is it Polynesian?).

RIght, that makes much more sense. I did suspect they were very close to Europeans. In fact for me, Eastern Indians seems to be the best resemblance of the whole population of the earth for they have characteristics from all three major races, Asians, Europeans and Africans.

[pivoxa15]

I don't know but I think there are three:

African
Asian
Indo-European (Middle Eastern is also included in this group)

I am not sure if Polynesian is considered separate or if it's part of Asian. If separate, it split a long time ago.

How about more of a distinction:

Europeans (i.e whites)
East Asians
Middle East / West Asia (Indo-Europeans)
Native Americans
Oceanian
African

[DaveC426913]

How about more of a distinction:

Europeans (i.e whites)
East Asians
Middle East / West Asia (Indo-Europeans)
Native Americans
Oceanian
African
Because we can trace East Indians and Europeans back to a common ancestry and we can trace native NA'cans back to either Asian or Oceanian ancestry (I forget which).

By definition then, they're the same race.

It is less clear if the four primaries have common ancestry. Many argue that modern man was born simultaneously in these places.

[animalcroc]

Why do you put Middle East and Europe together? For one, Afro-Asiatic languages are not Indo-European it that's what you meant.
I also do not agree on a biological classifcation of race since there are clines as you radially move away from a certain spot.

[DaveC426913]

Why do you put Middle East and Europe together? For one, Afro-Asiatic languages are not Indo-European it that's what you meant.Race is not about language.

[animalcroc]

Race is not about language.

You said you can trace Indians and Europeans to a common ancestry, but how did you do that? Or rather, how did researchers do that? With langauge.
If one wants to divide the world into arbitrary racial classifications using language they must be consistent.

[pivoxa15]

Because we can trace East Indians and Europeans back to a common ancestry and we can trace native NA'cans back to either Asian or Oceanian ancestry (I forget which).

By definition then, they're the same race.

It is less clear if the four primaries have common ancestry. Many argue that modern man was born simultaneously in these places.

But if my goal was to distinguish the people via physical features would these be the best separation?

Which do native south americans fit in? I assume the whites in south america are europeans.

[DaveC426913]

You said you can trace Indians and Europeans to a common ancestry, but how did you do that? Or rather, how did researchers do that? With langauge.Who says so? You?

[animalcroc]

Who says so? You?

Yeah. I'm following the the people who established this information a long time ago.
I am quite knowledgeable in linguistics, geography, and world history, much more than a typical person and probably more than you as well.
Sorry, but your faulty racial categorizations fall apart under scrutiny.

[DaveC426913]

Yeah. I'm following the the people who established this information a long time ago.
I am quite knowledgeable in linguistics, geography, and world history, much more than a typical person and probably more than you as well.
Sorry, but your faulty racial categorizations fall apart under scrutiny.
Well, "fall apart under scrutiny" is a tad bit overstated. So far you've simply countered with an unfounded claim of your own.

Can you direct me to something that says that language (as opposed to physiology) is the accepted most reliable way of determining ancient ancestry?

[Astronuc]

You said you can trace Indians and Europeans to a common ancestry, but how did you do that? Or rather, how did researchers do that? With langauge. Umm - no! Racial characteristics are determined from genetic and physiological similarities. Language would go with culture, which could be comprised of a predominant race, or perhaps a couple of races.
If one wants to divide the world into arbitrary racial classifications using language they must be consistent. Why would one wish to do that?

[Evo]

Yeah. I'm following the the people who established this information a long time ago.
I am quite knowledgeable in linguistics, geography, and world history, much more than a typical person and probably more than you as well.
Sorry, but your faulty racial categorizations fall apart under scrutiny.This nonsense has gone too far.

Thread locked.