Im trying to see what race most people tend to think I look like. So im going to post a couple pictures of me, and you tell me what you think. Its actually a few races, but tell me what you think I mostly look like.
I actually appreciate anyone who takes a serious shot at it. Im trying, as I said, to figure out what people generally think I am with no previous knowledge of me. First one is obviously a little more modern before I cut the hair thats in the second one.
Thanks a lot.[/quote]
Which Race do you look like:
You look like a 400 metre hurdle man to me, maybe dropping down to 200 at a push.
[quote]Alex630 wrote:
buffalokilla wrote:
Alex630 wrote:
It’s already known that there are several sub-species of human, with various overlapping components.
Who knows this?
-Dan
Most anthropologists accepted this fact before the nazis ruined it for everybody. After WW2, the ensuing backlash against racial science for nationalist gain ushered in the current social and academic mood, which is pretty much “we’re all equal no matter what la la la la la I can’t hear you!” This has killed the science of racial anthropology.
[/quote]
Oh boy. The topic of race is as volatile in the profession of anthropology as it is to the general populace. Yes the PC police have gotten out of hand, as (obviously) have the racists, but Race does NOT equal species or sub-species! For those who want to actually have an EDUCATED opinion on race, (instead of just spouting off) here are the two anthro books on race that I’ve got sitting on my shelf: THE EVOLUTION OF RACISM (Human Differences and the Use and Abuse of Science) by Pat Shipman and RACE(The Reality of Human Differences) by Vincent Sarich
Thread was pretty tame actually, given that here in America, talking about racial differences is taboo.
The original poster committed a crime, and got off easy. Just a little social pressure to keep others from straying into sin.[/quote]
It may be somewhat of an urban legend over here, but if I asked for a black coffee (coffee without milk, white coffee has milk) in America, would people really think that is offensive?
Thread was pretty tame actually, given that here in America, talking about racial differences is taboo.
The original poster committed a crime, and got off easy. Just a little social pressure to keep others from straying into sin.
It may be somewhat of an urban legend over here, but if I asked for a black coffee (coffee without milk, white coffee has milk) in America, would people really think that is offensive?[/quote]
I’ve heard people wanting their milk strong and white. I took offense to that 'cause I’m weak.
Thread was pretty tame actually, given that here in America, talking about racial differences is taboo.
The original poster committed a crime, and got off easy. Just a little social pressure to keep others from straying into sin.
It may be somewhat of an urban legend over here, but if I asked for a black coffee (coffee without milk, white coffee has milk) in America, would people really think that is offensive?
I’ve heard people wanting their milk strong and white. I took offense to that 'cause I’m weak.
[/quote]
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Alex630 wrote:
A few points. For starters, anybody can see that different races exist. Racial differences are certainly more than “skin deep”, encompassing skeletal structure and muscle type. It remains to be seen if there are differences in thought process and brain function, but since even discussing racial differences is taboo, it may be a while yet before the scientific community figures it out.
I am going to assume that this is not a racist response for starters. There are genetic tendancies among GROUPS of people. Asians, for example, scored 4% higher than whites on average on the original IQ tests.
Take away the skin color genes and you can not tell what race someone belongs to by even a complete analysis of their DNA.
In the current human DNA map, their are 7 major subgroups of humans that are statistically significantly different. 6 of these are various subgroups of Africans. The 7th consists of north east africans and all other ethnic groups-white, indian, asian, native american and aboriginal australians. In other words, caucasions are a phenotypic variation of one of the 7 major subgroups of Africans.
Any person on earth has a genome that could statistically fall within the genetic variability of any subgroup (if skin color is removed).[/quote]
That is actually very interesting.
OP – genetically: you, me, Julius Caesar, Emperor Hirohito, Chief Sitting Bull, Pharoah Ramses I, Saddam Hussein, the President of the Phillipines, and most Northeast Africans are the same race; vs. other Africans who are six different races (to the extent that “race” has any scientifically valid meaning).
[quote]NealRaymond2 wrote:
OP – genetically: you, me, Julius Caesar, Emperor Hirohito, Chief Sitting Bull, Pharoah Ramses I, Saddam Hussein, the President of the Phillipines, and most Northeast Africans are the same race; vs. other Africans who are six different races (to the extent that “race” has any scientifically valid meaning).[/quote]
Well, that’s just silly. I can tell the difference between myself and the President of the Philippines just by looking in the mirror, so obviously there’s something going on that isn’t being acknowledged. You’ve just taken the meaning out of the term race with that example.
I won’t really get into genetics, as that isn’t my forte, but the idea of clines (I think they’re called that) makes sense to me. Sort of like a racial spectrum with no clearly defined borders between the colours, but certainly clear examples of each one are to be found.
And if you take away the skin colour gene (did you mean pigment gene?), there is still body and skull shape to be dealt with.
[quote]Alex630 wrote:
It’s perfectly natural, but when whites do it, and because we were here first and have developed a better infrastructure, or do a better job of it, it’s bad.
[/quote]
Hahaha, I sensed a hint of bias and racial preference in your post after the first sentence and reading the last sentence was a funny predictable conclusion, your post’s logic is just as warped as the one you are debating against.
[quote]Alex630 wrote:
buffalokilla wrote:
Alex630 wrote:
It’s already known that there are several sub-species of human, with various overlapping components.
Who knows this?
-Dan
Most anthropologists accepted this fact before the nazis ruined it for everybody. After WW2, the ensuing backlash against racial science for nationalist gain ushered in the current social and academic mood, which is pretty much “we’re all equal no matter what la la la la la I can’t hear you!” This has killed the science of racial anthropology.
Seriously though, nobody bats and eye when you suggest that two animals of the same species can be separate subspecies, despite the fact that their differences might be minute in comparison to those found in humanity.
[/quote]
It is true that their are physiological differences between human beings. It’s a function of geogrpahy. Those that evolved over millions of years at the equator are different in some ways than those who evolved over millions of years in Scandanavia. Skin color is one example.
Those originally from the equator are very dark; they have a lot of melanin in their skin because they needed it to protect themselves from the sun. While those who evolved from cold climates tend to be very light. They have little melanin in their skin because they needed to absorb the [minimal] suns rays where they lived to synthesize Vitamin D and for other reasons.
And it’s not so much that we have several sub-species. More like infinite, gradual gradiations and differences based on where our ancestors evolved. And it should also be noted that genetically there are much more difference WITHIN so-called races than BETWEEN them.
Thread was pretty tame actually, given that here in America, talking about racial differences is taboo.
The original poster committed a crime, and got off easy. Just a little social pressure to keep others from straying into sin.
It may be somewhat of an urban legend over here, but if I asked for a black coffee (coffee without milk, white coffee has milk) in America, would people really think that is offensive?[/quote]
Haha. No, I get it all the time. I’ve never gotten strange looks.
[quote]Amsterdam Animal wrote:
Ok maybe I am missing something here, but how exactly does that make sense?
worzel wrote:
i have lived with many nationalities over the years and they said i look dutch. considering ireland was overrun with normans way back this makes sense.
[/quote]
The Normans or Norsemen were a mixture of the indigenous population of Neustria and Danish or Norwegian Vikings who began to occupy the northern area of France now known as Normandy in the latter half of the 9th century.
The Normans invaded and settled in Ireland and had a profound effect on Irish culture, history and ethnicity. The Normans settled mostly in an area in the east of Ireland, later known as the Pale, which is the area I am from and considering my family name/names originate from here and from these times I can safely say the origin of my looks/appearence stems from this invasion, which make sense.
coupled with the fact that the people I have lived with from spain / italy / germany / france / holland have mentioned my looks are more dutch than their preconcieved notion of a typical irish look
obviuosly today there is a clear blurring of recognisable traits where looks are concerned considering the movement and mixing of people form country to country but you can tell with a lot of people what country they originated from simply by looks alone
[quote]Alex630 wrote:
And if you take away the skin colour gene (did you mean pigment gene?), there is still body and skull shape to be dealt with.[/quote]
Which could not be used, for example, to definitively identify someones race, it could only place a statistically probability on it. You could find someone who, based on gross anatomical features was 95% likely to be American Indian, and yet they could be Asian, Aborigonal etc.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Alex630 wrote:
And if you take away the skin colour gene (did you mean pigment gene?), there is still body and skull shape to be dealt with.
Which could not be used, for example, to definitively identify someones race, it could only place a statistically probability on it. You could find someone who, based on gross anatomical features was 95% likely to be American Indian, and yet they could be Asian, Aborigonal etc. [/quote]
Exactly. Forensics is to the point where they are beginning to adandon the idea all together because it has little relevance considering the mixing of genes in America. I think people like Alex won’t know what to do in a few hundred years when there is only one race for the most part.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
Alex630 wrote:
And if you take away the skin colour gene (did you mean pigment gene?), there is still body and skull shape to be dealt with.
Which could not be used, for example, to definitively identify someones race, it could only place a statistically probability on it. You could find someone who, based on gross anatomical features was 95% likely to be American Indian, and yet they could be Asian, Aborigonal etc.
Exactly. Forensics is to the point where they are beginning to adandon the idea all together because it has little relevance considering the mixing of genes in America. I think people like Alex won’t know what to do in a few hundred years when there is only one race for the most part.[/quote]
No kidding. It is happening fast too. When I was a kid you rarely saw “inter-racial” couples.
Now you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting some kid with that is a product of “inter-racial” action.
