|
muludnep -> RE: James Byrd Jr (6/9/2008 4:40:11 PM)
|
To KittenSol & Popeye
Just saw this scrolling in the "new forum posts" ticker on the left and had to give my 2 cents as far as racial classifications go. I don't usually post on here much, but...
Actually, FIVE races (more accuately, sub-species, since race can mean virtually anything biological hence why some people preach that race should be replaced via clines, however most in the field believe they can co-exist functionally) of homo-sapien species (note that these are NOT classified via geographical locations, but I just added regions they have been the majority in at any time for illustration):
1. Australoid (largely found in southern India as well as Australia, pre-Caucasoid conquest),
2. Capoid (largely found in southern African, ex. Khoikhoi)
3. Caucasoid (largely found in Europe, the middle east, and historically north Africa and west Asia),
4. Congoid (largely found throughout sub-Saharan Africa)
5. Mongoloid (largely found in east and southwest Asia as well as the Americas pre-Caucasoid conquest),
Very rarely nowadays people simplify all of the final three into "negroid", making the total 3, but its very innaccurate. In modern America we often assume that black is just "black" due to the taboo of discussing race, but on the contrary; these are 2 genetically unique African races as seperate as white and black. Capoids have Epicanthic eyefolds (somewhat asiatic looking eyes and an overall "tight" look of the upper face), more of a more golden shade of brown skin vs pure Congoid ebony, and different hair texture and bone structures. Australoids are entirely separate and not even geographically connected to either of these groups, and quite frankly have nothing in common with the other two groups other than very dark skin. I won't go into cranial capacity and IQ differences between all of these because that always makes everyone go crazy...
Indeed these terms are pretty much all "politically incorrect", but lets face it, science cant accomodate everyone's feelings/economically influenced morals all of the time. Even in physical/bioloogical anthropology courses at a famously leftist (and even Marxist) university like UCLA, we tossed these terms around casually whilst our latest published text books said they were bad and evil (with little to zero elaboration other than the token mention of the mapping of clines).
IE:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-01/sumc-rgm012705.php
Studies upon studies like these recieve little to know attention not because they are incorrect; just because in a country where mass paranoia of Balkanization exists and much of our 35%+ tax bracket economy is largely dependent on perpetual immigration induced wage deflation, its not tasty media. Race does exist. Why people use this as a pillar in the debate about racism vs anti-racism however, does not make ANY sense to me. If you acknowledge the existence of something, you are obligated to war with it?
Just a rant...
|
|
|
|
