What is the most accepted classification of the different races?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pivoxa15
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Classification
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the classification of different races based on physical features, exploring various perspectives on how races are defined and whether such classifications hold biological validity. Participants engage in a debate about the implications of race as a concept, its scientific grounding, and the potential classifications that could be applied.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that race is not a biologically sound concept, suggesting that there are no objective criteria for distinguishing races.
  • Others propose classifications based on physical features, suggesting categories such as African, Asian, and Indo-European, though there is uncertainty about the inclusion of groups like Polynesians.
  • One participant suggests that there is essentially one class: human, while acknowledging noticeable differences among populations.
  • Discussions arise about the common ancestry of Eastern Indians and Europeans, with some asserting they belong to the same race based on shared characteristics.
  • Several participants question the validity of using language as a basis for racial classification, arguing that physical characteristics should be the focus.
  • There are claims that most genetic variation occurs within communities rather than between them, challenging the utility of racial classifications.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the reliability of existing classifications and the motivations behind them, suggesting they may be dangerous or misleading.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the classification of races, with multiple competing views presented. Some agree that race lacks a biological basis, while others advocate for various classifications based on physical features.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved issues regarding the definitions of race and the criteria used for classification. The discussion reflects a mix of biological, linguistic, and cultural perspectives, with participants expressing differing views on the implications of these classifications.

pivoxa15
Messages
2,250
Reaction score
1
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.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
"Accepted" how and by whom? Ie, you are correct to post this in social sciences, since race is not a biologically sound concept.
 
I think there is 1 class. Human.
 
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.
 
russ_watters said:
"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.
 
glondor said:
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.
 
DaveC426913 said:
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?
 
"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
 
pivoxa15 said:
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.

Moridin said:
"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?
 
  • #10
pivoxa15 said:
What does the indo stand for?
Eastern Indians and Europeans are part of the same race.
 
  • #11
DaveC426913 said:
Eastern Indians and Europeans are part of the same race.


The indians originally in America? They look more like Asians?
 
  • #12
pivoxa15 said:
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?).
 
  • #13
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!
 
Last edited:
  • #14
plutoisacomet said:
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.
 
  • #15
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #16
DaveC426913 said:
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
 
  • #17
pivoxa15 said:
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.
 
  • #18
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.
 
  • #19
animalcroc said:
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.
 
  • #20
DaveC426913 said:
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 language.
If one wants to divide the world into arbitrary racial classifications using language they must be consistent.
 
  • #21
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #22
animalcroc said:
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 language.
Who says so? You?
 
  • #23
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
animalcroc said:
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #25
animalcroc said:
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 language.
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?
 
  • #26
animalcroc said:
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.
 

Similar threads

Parallel-ish Theories Terminology
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Insights Classification of Mathematics by 42 Branches
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
High School Death Rally: an intricate probability problem?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Python Understanding Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) Tutorials & Examples
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Book recommendations about singular points of algebraic curves
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Other Is not getting a 1st a red flag in academia?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
C# Questions on locating and characterizing facial features in C#
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Speeding Up SQL Query: Grouping & Joining
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
6K
Undergrad Spectrum classification and dimension reduction
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Would Wheeler's oscillatory universe model create different laws?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K