The forum discussion centers on the classification of human races based on physical features, with participants debating the validity and scientific basis of such classifications. Key classifications mentioned include African, Asian, and Indo-European, with some contributors arguing for a single classification of "Human." The discussion highlights the lack of biological criteria for race and the dangers of rigid classifications. Ultimately, the consensus leans towards the idea that race is a social construct rather than a scientifically valid concept.
PREREQUISITESSocial scientists, anthropologists, educators, and anyone interested in understanding the complexities of race and its implications in society.
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.
glondor said:I think there is 1 class. Human.
DaveC426913 said:I don't know but I think there are three:Indo-European (Middle Eastern is also included in this group)
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.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.
- 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?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.
Eastern Indians and Europeans are part of the same race.pivoxa15 said:What does the indo stand for?
DaveC426913 said:Eastern Indians and Europeans are part of the same race.
No! Eastern indian! India, Pakistan. etc. They are the same race as Europeans.pivoxa15 said:The indians originally in America? They look more like Asians?
Care to elaborate? I don't recall anyone talking about migration.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!
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?).
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.
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).pivoxa15 said:How about more of a distinction:
Europeans (i.e whites)
East Asians
Middle East / West Asia (Indo-Europeans)
Native Americans
Oceanian
African
Race is not about language.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.
DaveC426913 said:Race is not about language.
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.
Who says so? You?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.
DaveC426913 said:Who says so? You?
Well, "fall apart under scrutiny" is a tad bit overstated. So far you've simply countered with an unfounded claim of your own.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.
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.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.
Why would one wish to do that?If one wants to divide the world into arbitrary racial classifications using language they must be consistent.
This nonsense has gone too far.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.