[Sherwin]

Originally posted by entrox:
I thought it is blue because of Rayleigh scattering

[OAW]

As others have pointed out, if you are going to get into the "Negroid", "Mongloid" thing ... then the corresponding term for white people would be "Caucasoid". The problem is, all of that all of those terms are BS. They were created several centuries ago by so-called European "scientists" whose agenda was to prove the supposed "superiority" of white people. After all, the trans-Atlantic slave trade, colonialism, and other forms of racism had to be justified somehow.

The bottom line here is that humanity originated in Africa. While modern science (including DNA studies) have proven that "race" has no biological basis ... it is still a social/ethnic reality. So in that sense, "black" people are the original, and thus, "oldest" people on the planet. All other "races" are merely "black" people who have undergone various genetic mutations as a result of geography, climate, and reproduction. The reality is that every physical feature is found somewhere in "black" people. You have "black" people who aren't the result of interbreeding with other "races" who naturally exhibit features that are typically associated with other "races". From thin noses, to thin lips, to light skin, to straight hair ... even blonde hair and blue eyes. And this is because in a biological sense ... there are no "black" people or "white" people ... only humans.

The problems come in when people introduce their various hang-ups and other "isms" into the equation. For instance, I found it funny how various European "scientists" jumped through hoops and hurdles attempting to deny the African roots of ancient Egypt. The cited as "proof" that many of the people who built the pyramids were "Caucasoids" because they had thin noses and thin lips. Yet one can simply go to North East Africa (Egypt, Ethiopia, Somalia) today and see millions of obviously "black" people who have those features. The unfortunate thing is that when it comes to getting credit for founding one of the earliest and greatest civilizations the world has known these people are "caucasians" ... but if one of their descendants was walking down the street in some white neighborhood in the US they can easily find themselves being called n*gger. Go figure.

OAW

[crayola]

good point OAW. to me race is merely just the biological adaptation of a group of people to a particular region of the planet. when you see someone of a different race, instead of feeling uncomfortable you should marvel at how adaptable the human species really is.

and, when we finally start living on other planets, over time those people will also undergo biological adaptations to better suit the particular environment they are in. they will look quite different than what we would consider human today but in essence they will be human just the same.

[christ]

see - I told you - 'white' = 'racist'.

[Sherwin]

So... I'd like someone to explain this...

What geographical/climatic differences (from Europe) are there in Eastern Asia which lead to Asian peeps?

[historylme]

What do you call white wash latinos, blacks and Asians?

[christ]

Originally posted by OAW:
...All other "races" are merely "black" people who have undergone various genetic mutations as a result of geography, climate, and reproduction....

This being essentially a dictionary definition of evolution, do I understand you to be saying that white folks evolved from black folks? That black folk are somehow less evolved than whites?

That is a somewhat radical (and controversial) position I would think, particularly for an African-American.

[talisker]

Originally posted by christ:
This being essentially a dictionary definition of evolution, do I understand you to be saying that white folks evolved from black folks? That black folk are somehow less evolved than whites?

That is a somewhat radical (and controversial) position I would think, particularly for an African-American.

I would assume that even though the fist homo sapiens were in Africa, they had little similarity to a modern black African. Probably more true to say that both black and white folks evolved from early African man. Is it a bird, is it a plane, no it's Early African Man! (Sorry, got a bit silly there)

[dav]

Originally posted by christ:
That black folk are somehow less evolved than whites?

rather i think, all humans have evolved at the same rate, but environmental conditions affected the evolution of humans in different geographic areas. adapting to an environment doesn't make one a more evolved human, just a human suited to an environment.

[stevesnj]

ARE YOU MY CAUCASIAN ?!?!?!?!

[christ]

Originally posted by talisker:
I would assume that even though the fist homo sapiens were in Africa, they had little similarity to a modern black African. Probably more true to say that both black and white folks evolved from early African man.

Possibly (and actually this would fit more closely with my personal opinion), but that is explicitly not what OAW said, which was, and I quote:

So in that sense, "black" people are the original, and thus, "oldest" people on the planet. All other "races" are merely "black" people who have undergone various genetic mutations as a result of geography, climate, and reproduction

(my emboldening)

Thus explicitly stating that the current 'black' folk are the original.

Was this what you meant OAW?

[OAW]

Originally posted by christ:
This being essentially a dictionary definition of evolution, do I understand you to be saying that white folks evolved from black folks? That black folk are somehow less evolved than whites?

That is a somewhat radical (and controversial) position I would think, particularly for an African-American.

It's not a matter of "evolution" per se. Rather, it's an issue of how the physical characteristics associated with "whiteness" came to be expressed in a particular group of people. These characteristics have always existed in "black people". However, they are recessive traits from a genetic standpoint. Dark skin is "dominant", whereas, light skin is "recessive". The same goes for brown eyes vs blue eyes. Dark hair vs. light hair. Etc.

Now there are various theories as to how "white people" came to appear as they do considering how it is not the norm for humanity (approx. 11% of the world population). One theory is that the first people to emigrate from Africa and migrate into Europe undoubtedly looked very similar to any other African. However, over the course of thousands of years of being in a much colder climate (even had an Ice Age or two) with a lot less sunlight (which results in a Vitamin D deficiency and thus a lack of melanin production) ... and their relative isolation from other peoples of the world ... we eventually saw that group of people start to exhibit phenotypical differences that were better suited to that environment. Another theory is that "whiteness" is a form of albinism that somehow gained expression in a relatively isolated group of people. Or perhaps it's a combination of the two.

Regardless, I am certainly not saying that whites are more "evolved" than blacks ... especially in the sense of intelligence or in anyway being "superior". Additionally, I'm not a big believer in "evolution" anyway .... at least in the sense of one species changing into another. The fact of the matter is that has never been observed and I'm not aware of any evidence that it ever has. Now certainly we witness mutation within a species ... but a fish suddenly sprouting legs and walking out of the water is another thing altogether!

OAW

[OAW]

Originally posted by dav:
rather i think, all humans have evolved at the same rate, but environmental conditions affected the evolution of humans in different geographic areas. adapting to an environment doesn't make one a more evolved human, just a human suited to an environment.

Exactly.

OAW

[christ]

Originally posted by OAW:
It's not a matter of "evolution" per se. Rather, it's an issue of how the physical characteristics associated with "whiteness" came to be expressed in a particular group of people. These characteristics have always existed in "black people". However, they are recessive traits from a genetic standpoint. Dark skin is "dominant", whereas, light skin is "recessive". The same goes for brown eyes vs blue eyes. Dark hair vs. light hair. Etc.

Now there are various theories as to how "white people" came to appear as they do considering how it is not the norm for humanity (approx. 11% of the world population). One theory is that the first people to emigrate from Africa and migrate into Europe undoubtedly looked very similar to any other African. However, over the course of thousands of years of being in a much colder climate (even had an Ice Age or two) with a lot less sunlight (which results in a Vitamin D deficiency and thus a lack of melanin production) ... and their relative isolation from other peoples of the world ... we eventually saw that group of people start to exhibit phenotypical differences that were better suited to that environment. Another theory is that "whiteness" is a form of albinism that somehow gained expression in a relatively isolated group of people. Or perhaps it's a combination of the two.

Regardless, I am certainly not saying that whites are more "evolved" than blacks ... especially in the sense of intelligence or in anyway being "superior". Additionally, I'm not a big believer in "evolution" anyway .... at least in the sense of one species changing into another. The fact of the matter is that has never been observed and I'm not aware of any evidence that it ever has. Now certainly we witness mutation within a species ... but a fish suddenly sprouting legs and walking out of the water is another thing altogether!

OAW

OK, but white is still white - is it thus your contention that a group of whites left to interbreed will result in blacks (as the dominant genes reassert themselves?)

Or is it your assertion that blacks in northern climes will become white regardless of interbreeding because of the climate?

And, while I agree almost entirely with your view of mutation rather than evolution, when does a mutation become another species? 'suddenly sprouting legs' may be implausible, but what about 'losing the use of legs, and atrophying'?

[Sherwin]

Following on with the idea that white peeps are white because of a lack of sunlight, why aren't native South Americans or native Indonesians (living in a near identical equatorial climate) similar to Africans?

[quandarry]

evolution in progress...black folk to white folk.

[OAW]

Originally posted by christ:
Thus explicitly stating that the current 'black' folk are the original.

Was this what you meant OAW?

The scientific record indicates that humanity originated in Africa. This has held so long and is supported by so much evidence that it is not even seriously questioned anymore. The scientific record also indicates that humans underwent various migration from Africa to the rest of the world. Either by traveling or by hitching a ride when the continents broke up. Now having said that, given the climate and other geographical conditions of Africa, there's not much reason to think that these original humans had a dramatically different appearance than modern Africans. I mean let's be real here ... "white" people as we know them today are not indigenous to that part of the world. Or perhaps to be more accurate, they haven't been for a very looooooong time!

Another way to look at this from a genetic standpoint. As we all know, we all inherit half of our genes from each parent. Now a dominant trait is one that you will possess if either parent had it. A recessive trait is one that you will possess only if both parents had it. So by simply doing the math, even if one were to intermix one parent that had a dominant trait and another parent with a recessive trait ... the dominant trait will get expressed in the offspring 6 out of 8 times. IOW, it is very difficult for recessive traits to propagate unless both parents exhibit them. And conversely, it is next to impossible for two parents who both have recessive traits to produce an offspring with dominant traits.

(Reference: http://library.thinkquest.org/C01258...h/dominant.php)

Since the physical characteristics that define "whiteness" are recessive traits, they are inherently, not the norm. This is why "white" people are without a doubt a minority in the world population (approx. 11%). The minority does not produce the majority from a genetic standpoint. It's the other way around.

OAW

PS: On a side note, there is an interesting theory regarding the root cause of the "racism/white supremacy" ideology. In a nutshell, it centers around a deeply held, almost subconscious fear of the "genetic annihilation" of "white" people. That is, because of the dominant/recessive trait situation that I discussed above, the minority that wishes to preserve its existence as a phenotypically distinct group feels it must dominate and control the majority in order to prevent widespread interbreeding which would result in them being absorbed back into the fold so to speak. Just one example of the expression of this fear was how even the thought of a black man with a white woman often resulted in a visceral and violent reaction from many white men. There was a reason why black men who were lynched typically had their testicles cut off. As the great hip-hop group Public Enemy put it ... it was the "Fear of a Black Planet". But anyway, that's a subject for another thread altogether!

[OAW]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Following on with the idea that white peeps are white because of a lack of sunlight, why aren't native South Americans or native Indonesians (living in a near identical equatorial climate) similar to Africans?

Many are. In the Pacific Islands at least. I remember attending a lecture once and the presenter showed a tribe of black people ... very dark skinned black people ... most of whom had naturally blond, kinky hair. At the end of that section, he then showed how they didn't live in Africa at all .... rather on some island in the Pacific. If I have time, I might look for a link and post it.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally posted by quandarry:
evolution in progress...black folk to white folk.

If you buy Michael's story he is suffering from severe case of vitiligo which results in the loss of melanin in one's skin. While this is possible, I found it questionable since I have seen many people who suffer from this and there's one thing I know to be true ... it results in blotches in the affected area. Yet somehow Michael has managed to lighten uniformly across his entire body. I don't buy the "he evens out his skin with makeup" line because I've seen him open his shirt in concert, sweating under the hot lights and have not seen a hint of his original skin tone. Additionally, even if that were the case every one I've ever seen with it applied makeup to the affected areas to restore their original appearance. I think what's a lot more likely is that Michael has unfortunately become a example of a severe case of internalized self-hatred. Vitiligo certainly didn't result in his nose practically disappearing over the years!

OAW

[busket68]

Just to clear things up, I have no problem with people of other races, I was just curious about the terminology.

- Rob

[hyteckit]

We are all HOMO's

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by OAW:
Many are. In the Pacific Islands at least. I remember attending a lecture once and the presenter showed a tribe of black people ... very dark skinned black people ... most of whom had naturally blond, kinky hair. At the end of that section, he then showed how they didn't live in Africa at all .... rather on some island in the Pacific. If I have time, I might look for a link and post it.

Thanks OAW. I'd appreciate a link if you can find one - that tribe would be very interesting to see.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Following on with the idea that white peeps are white because of a lack of sunlight, why aren't native South Americans or native Indonesians (living in a near identical equatorial climate) similar to Africans?

To follow up on and clarify some of what OAW said:
Africans should be just as "evolved" as anyone else .. they didn't stop evolving during the time that caucasians were developing lighter skin, etc. They just continued to evolve in ways appropriate to their environment.

Why aren't South Americans or Indonesians as dark as Africans ? Two main reasons: First, they have only been in their environment for a relatively short time. The archaeological record right now shows Native Americans having been in the Americas for about 17k years (recently pushed back from a previous estimate of 12k). Its thought that their direct ancestors were Asiatic with light skin ... so they've only had a short time to get darker again. Second, the environment in S. Amer and Indonesia is SIGNIFICANTLY different than the "cradle of humanity" in Africa's rift valley. Much more tree cover and much cloudier/rainier -- the rift valley in Africa is not a desert but it is pretty dry plains most of the time ... with only spotty tree cover. If you look at other dry and sunny tropical and sub-tropical climates, indigenous peoples ARE as dark or darker than African (Australian Aborigines, Tamil peoples of South India).

I'm definitely not current with all human evolutionary theory but I was an Anthropology major in college and was really on top of that stuff 10 years ago or so ... everything from why we lost our hair (but retained it in certain places) to our dental patterns and what it says about our dietary past. Fascinating stuff that I wish I was still up on ....

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by OAW:
The scientific record indicates that humanity originated in Africa. This has held so long and is supported by so much evidence that it is not even seriously questioned anymore. The scientific record also indicates that humans underwent various migration from Africa to the rest of the world. Either by traveling or by hitching a ride when the continents broke up.

You have studied much about sociology, but not much about geology. Might I suggest a timeline? Pangea had clearly broken up before humans arrived on the scene.

Now having said that, given the climate and other geographical conditions of Africa, there's not much reason to think that these original humans had a dramatically different appearance than modern Africans.

Except maybe that the human race is still evolving? You know, new mutations showing up all the time. My guesses would include: the original humans were slightly shorter than we are now, dark curly hair and probably chocolate brown to dark skin. Other than that, I dunno. Keep in mind that the climate conditions in Africa have not been constant - the Sahara desert used to be a rich savannah, and I'm sure that Africa was cooler during the ice ages.

I mean let's be real here ... "white" people as we know them today are not indigenous to that part of the world. Or perhaps to be more accurate, they haven't been for a very looooooong time!

Another way to look at this from a genetic standpoint. As we all know, we all inherit half of our genes from each parent. Now a dominant trait is one that you will possess if either parent had it. A recessive trait is one that you will possess only if both parents had it. So by simply doing the math, even if one were to intermix one parent that had a dominant trait and another parent with a recessive trait ... the dominant trait will get expressed in the offspring 6 out of 8 times. IOW, it is very difficult for recessive traits to propagate unless both parents exhibit them. And conversely, it is next to impossible for two parents who both have recessive traits to produce an offspring with dominant traits.

(Reference: http://library.thinkquest.org/C01258...h/dominant.php)

Hold on there, speedy, it isn't quite that simple. Some traits are like that (where they're either expressed or they aren't), most traits aren't. Darkness of hair, darkness of skin, etc tend to be more on a sliding scale of dominance than simple "dominant" and "not." So, if a person whose melanin production is low breeds with a person whose melanin production is high then the result could be anything from low to high (depending on the actual genetic makeup of both parents).

Perhaps it's better to say that whiteness (in terms of color) isn't a gene actively expressing itself, it's a gene not functioning (to produce pigment). Now, depending on how much pigment a gene from the other parent is able to produce, it may or may not make up for the deficiency of the other.

With some traits (like maleness) it's binary, with others it's not. In this case, not.

Let me also add that the genes will propagate just fine. Just because you don't see the trait in the offspring doesn't mean the gene is magically destroyed or something. Unless there is some pressure that causes those with the trait to die off (natural selection, breeding preference, etc), the genes hang around just fine whether you see the results or not.

Since the physical characteristics that define "whiteness" are recessive traits, they are inherently, not the norm. This is why "white" people are without a doubt a minority in the world population (approx. 11%). The minority does not produce the majority from a genetic standpoint. It's the other way around.

That's a load of bull-crap. If the white race had wiped out most of the rest of the human race, white people wouldn't be the original all of a sudden, would they? Or how about the fact that the aborigines of Australia are some of the blackest people I've ever seen. Does that mean that people in fact came from Australia because, as we all know, the darker the skin the more dominant the genes?

You're ignorance of substantive genetics and use of loading terms to describe it is rather annoying.

OAW

PS: On a side note, there is an interesting theory regarding the root cause of the "racism/white supremacy" ideology. In a nutshell, it centers around a deeply held, almost subconscious fear of the "genetic annihilation" of "white" people. That is, because of the dominant/recessive trait situation that I discussed above, the minority that wishes to preserve its existence as a phenotypically distinct group feels it must dominate and control the majority in order to prevent widespread interbreeding which would result in them being absorbed back into the fold so to speak. Just one example of the expression of this fear was how even the thought of a black man with a white woman often resulted in a visceral and violent reaction from many white men. There was a reason why black men who were lynched typically had their testicles cut off. As the great hip-hop group Public Enemy put it ... it was the "Fear of a Black Planet". But anyway, that's a subject for another thread altogether!

That theory is incredibly stupid, to say the least. White people don't have a monopoly on xenophobia. Something more plausible might involve competition with the neanderthals that went to the point of hominids hunting other hominids. That would lead to a more intense xenophobia, and even sounds plausible. What you describe is more like pseudoscientific claptrap.

Let me give you an easy test for if a theory is scientific or not. Simply ask the question, "Can this be proven false by observation?" If not, it isn't a scientific theory.

BlackGriffen

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Why aren't South Americans or Indonesians as dark as Africans ? Two main reasons: First, they have only been in their environment for a relatively short time. The archaeological record right now shows Native Americans having been in the Americas for about 17k years (recently pushed back from a previous estimate of 12k). Its thought that their direct ancestors were Asiatic with light skin ... so they've only had a short time to get darker again. Second, the environment in S. Amer and Indonesia is SIGNIFICANTLY different than the "cradle of humanity" in Africa's rift valley. Much more tree cover and much cloudier/rainier -- the rift valley in Africa is not a desert but it is pretty dry plains most of the time ... with only spotty tree cover. If you look at other dry and sunny tropical and sub-tropical climates, indigenous peoples ARE as dark or darker than African (Australian Aborigines, Tamil peoples of South India).

OK. That made sense...

...until I read this:

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Pangea had clearly broken up before humans arrived on the scene.

(I really haven't got a clue about all this, but I'm kinda interested. I'll wait it out and see who wins)

[crayola]

wow, this has been some interesting reading, and some of you really know your stuff.

i think it's too bad that the environmental factors that contributed to the biological factors of race isn't taught in grade school. that way when we see someone of a different race, instead of thinking of them as inferior or strange, you could look at them and think, oh well he's that color or his nose or lips are shaped that way simply because nature decided that was best suited for the region of the planet his ancestors came from. because, in essence, that's all race really is.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
OK. That made sense...

...until I read this:

That was just BG's rebuttal of OAW's comment that human populations spread "Either by traveling or by hitching a ride when the continents broke up."

Most of the current continents are thought to have been part of one giant continent (dubbed "Pangea" by geologist) that broke apart and "floated" on the earth's various plates to their current positions. The forces of these movements are still active today and the earth's plates are still crunching, grinding, sliding under (or over) the other plates.

HOWEVER ... Pangea broke apart Way Way WAY before any sort of human-like primates existed (like 100-130 million years ago). So, "no", they definitely didn't "hitch a ride when the continents broke up".

edit: here's a more "primate centric" timeline with a picture of what the earth probably looked like around that time (about 60 million years ago ... well after Pangea broke up). http://anthro.palomar.edu/earlyprima...t_primates.htm
Note: read to the bottom, its hypothesized that the direct line to humans diverged about 6 million years ago.

[christ]

Originally posted by OAW:
...the physical characteristics that define "whiteness" are recessive traits, they are inherently, not the norm...

So, as I asked above, do you contend that white folk interbreeding will produce black folk as these 'dominants' come to the fore? I think not - therefore this theory is seriously flawed.

...This is why "white" people are without a doubt a minority in the world population (approx. 11%)...

Or it could be that the white folk developed as a mutation that was better suited to polar climes, but in this case, your interesting example notwithstanding, why aren't there as many whites from the southern hemisphere as from the northern hemisphere?

Why aren't whites hairier? (Or, to put it differently, what advantage does a beard give that full body hair wouldn't give better?)

Or could it be that there are different 'species' of human, like there are different 'species' of dog, and 11% of those human species are fair-skiined? (This is not to say that any species is more advanced than any other)

.....there is an interesting theory regarding the root cause of the "racism/white supremacy" ideology. In a nutshell, it centers around a deeply held, almost subconscious fear of the "genetic annihilation" of "white" people....

Like I said "white" = "racist". Welcome to doublethink.

[christ]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Let me give you an easy test for if a theory is scientific or not. Simply ask the question, "Can this be proven false by observation?" If not, it isn't a scientific theory.

But if it can be proven false by observation, doesn't that prove that it is an erroneous theory?

[OAW]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
You have studied much about sociology, but not much about geology. Might I suggest a timeline? Pangea had clearly broken up before humans arrived on the scene.

I stand corrected on that one. I wasn't sure when I wrote it which was why I was careful to use the word or in the sentence instead of and. But regardless, your point is well taken.

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:

Hold on there, speedy, it isn't quite that simple. Some traits are like that (where they're either expressed or they aren't), most traits aren't. Darkness of hair, darkness of skin, etc tend to be more on a sliding scale of dominance than simple "dominant" and "not." So, if a person whose melanin production is low breeds with a person whose melanin production is high then the result could be anything from low to high (depending on the actual genetic makeup of both parents).

Perhaps it's better to say that whiteness (in terms of color) isn't a gene actively expressing itself, it's a gene not functioning (to produce pigment). Now, depending on how much pigment a gene from the other parent is able to produce, it may or may not make up for the deficiency of the other.

With some traits (like maleness) it's binary, with others it's not. In this case, not.

Indeed. I'm not trying to say that "whiteness" or "blackness" is binary. Common sense and simple observation shows that that is not the case. Even among "black" people, there is a wide variety of skin tones. My central point is that the ability to produce melanin is a "dominant" trait, whereas the inability is "recessive".

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:

That's a load of bull-crap. If the white race had wiped out most of the rest of the human race, white people wouldn't be the original all of a sudden, would they? Or how about the fact that the aborigines of Australia are some of the blackest people I've ever seen. Does that mean that people in fact came from Australia because, as we all know, the darker the skin the more dominant the genes?

You're ignorance of substantive genetics and use of loading terms to describe it is rather annoying.

You dismiss what I said as "bull-crap", but you don't address the central point. The fact of the matter is that "whites" did not wipe out most of the rest of the human race (though they did make some serious efforts in some parts of the world ... just ask the Native Americans! ). My point is based upon the situation as it currently exists ... not some hypothetical situation that doe not. Additionally, Australia does have some of the darkest skinned people on the planet. After all they are "black" people who happen to live in Australia. Just as there are "black" people who happen to live in India, etc. Having said all that, there are still "black" people who happen to live in Africa who are just as dark as the darkest Australian "aborigine". Are all Africans "blacker than a thousand midnights"? Absolutely not, since there is variation in skin tone from region to region. The central point is that a group of people who have a severely limited ability to produce melanin can not produce a group of people who have a great ability to produce melanin. I fail to understand why this does not register with you?

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:

That theory is incredibly stupid, to say the least. White people don't have a monopoly on xenophobia. Something more plausible might involve competition with the neanderthals that went to the point of hominids hunting other hominids. That would lead to a more intense xenophobia, and even sounds plausible. What you describe is more like pseudoscientific claptrap.

Let me give you an easy test for if a theory is scientific or not. Simply ask the question, "Can this be proven false by observation?" If not, it isn't a scientific theory.

BlackGriffen

You say it's "incredibly stupid", yet utterly fail to address anything I said. I never said anything about white people having a "monopoly on xenophobia". I merely mentioned in passing a theory about the root causes of white supremacy. The theory is certainly controversial. Personally, I agree with portions of it and disagree with others. It is essentially psychological in nature, and the theory has been articulated by a trained psychologist. And as we all know, the field of psychology does not lend itself very well to "empirical" scientific study. As I said before, it really is the subject for another thread. However, if you want more detailed information just look here ...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...53542?v=glance

OAW

[perryp]

And as we all know, the field of psychology does not lend itself very well to "empirical" scientific study.

That's because psychology has as much relevance as astrology. Neuroscience is replacing psychology.

[OAW]

Originally posted by christ:
So, as I asked above, do you contend that white folk interbreeding will produce black folk as these 'dominants' come to the fore? I think not - therefore this theory is seriously flawed.

christ,

I'm really confused as to how you are getting that out of what I've said. Obviously "white" people interbreeding will not produce "black" people. Yet the opposite can occur given the right conditions. I don't really know what to say to make this clearer to you.

Originally posted by christ:

Or it could be that the white folk developed as a mutation that was better suited to polar climes, but in this case, your interesting example notwithstanding, why aren't there as many whites from the southern hemisphere as from the northern hemisphere?

Why aren't whites hairier? (Or, to put it differently, what advantage does a beard give that full body hair wouldn't give better?)

Well now you are getting into tricky areas. Keep in mind that "race" is not a biological reality. It is primarily a social/ethnic construct. Having said that, "whites" in general tend to be hairier than blacks. "Asians" in general tend to have the least amount of body hair. However, there are variations within groups so these are "tendencies", not absolutes. Modern DNA studies have shown that on a genetic level there were "black" people who had more in common genetically with "white" people than they had with other "black" people. Keep in mind that the genes that control melanin and facial feature size are but a handful of all the genes that make up a human being.

Originally posted by christ:

Or could it be that there are different 'species' of human, like there are different 'species' of dog, and 11% of those human species are fair-skiined? (This is not to say that any species is more advanced than any other)

Well it is my understanding that there is only one species of dog. Now there are different breeds which exhibit different physical characteristics. Many, if not most of which were created by selective breeding controlled by humans. Similarly there is only one "species" of human. And the human family has come to exhibit a variety of physical features for a variety of reasons. Some of these physical features have come to be associated with this notion called "race". But in the end we have to keep in mind that "race" is really nothing more than a social/ethnic construct ... not a biological reality.

OAW

[perryp]

Keep in mind that "race" is not a biological reality

You keep saying this, but you provide no evidence. As such, your opinion has as much scientific validity as Creationism.

The fact of the matter is that "whites" did not wipe out most of the rest of the human race (though they did make some serious efforts in some parts of the world ... just ask the Native Americans! :hmm

Most Native Americans died because from diseases of which they had no immunity. Hence they were unsuitable for slavery. African slaves had stronger immune systems which is why they were preferred to Native Americans. The difference in immune systems is of course another indication that race is a biological reality.

Additionally, Australia does have some of the darkest skinned people on the planet. After all they are "black" people who happen to live in Australia. Just as there are "black" people who happen to live in India, etc. Having said all that, there are still "black" people who happen to live in Africa who are just as dark as the darkest Australian "aborigine". Are all Africans "blacker than a thousand midnights"? Absolutely not, since there is variation in skin tone from region to region. The central point is that a group of people who have a severely limited ability to produce melanin can not produce a group of people who have a great ability to produce melanin.

You have a traditionally American view of race as having something purely to do with skin tone.

Additionally, I'm not a big believer in "evolution" anyway .... at least in the sense of one species changing into another. The fact of the matter is that has never been observed and I'm not aware of any evidence that it ever has. Now certainly we witness mutation within a species ... but a fish suddenly sprouting legs and walking out of the water is another thing altogether!

Ah - so you are a creationist!

[Krusty]

Originally posted by christ:
So, as I asked above, do you contend that white folk interbreeding will produce black folk as these 'dominants' come to the fore? I think not - therefore this theory is seriously flawed.

True. "Blackness" and "whiteness" are not simple either/or traits (as BG mentioned). Skin tones are a continuum and not "recessive" or "dominant". That'd be like saying that there is a dominant gene that makes a person 6'4" and a recessive one that makes people 5'6" -- clearly a nearly infinite (err, very large) number of possibilities is available.

Originally posted by christ:

Or it could be that the white folk developed as a mutation that was better suited to polar climes, but in this case, your interesting example notwithstanding, why aren't there as many whites from the southern hemisphere as from the northern hemisphere?

note: I'm not agreeing with OAW on this:
Look at a world map. The only inhabited parts of the planet that are in the Southern Hemisphere are Tropical/sub-Tropical southern Africa (very close to where original black humans evolved), South America (whose native populations are relatively recent arrivals), and Australia (whose aboriginal population is black). There is only a tiny portion of inhabited land south of the equator that is in the temperate or arctic zones. Why would "whiteness" develop in any of these places?? Contrast to the huge temperate and arctic landmass of the northern hemisphere.

Originally posted by christ:

Why aren't whites hairier? (Or, to put it differently, what advantage does a beard give that full body hair wouldn't give better?)

Okay, I'll try to be brief. Africans largely lost body hair when they started walking upright. When populations moved north, they started w/o hair but it was too cold to survive so they had to wear clothes or die. So, now with clothing to protect them, body hair became non-selective (or at least a lot less of a selection factor). If a trait is non-selective, then it doesn't really matter about variation. Some people are more hairy than others, some are less .. doesn't matter anymore because the "use" for body hair is now defunct due to clothing. As far as beards: some have postulated that it a big beard is almost like a lion's mane. It creates a larger and more imposing appearance on the person who has the beard. Also, even when wearing clothes, the face is typically exposed for seeing, smelling and eating, so the warmth factor might still come into play somewhat for facial hair as opposed to having a full pelt of body hair. Both Africans and Caucasians have beards, though heavy beards seem to be more common amongst Caucasians.

Originally posted by christ:

Or could it be that there are different 'species' of human, like there are different 'species' of dog, and 11% of those human species are fair-skiined? (This is not to say that any species is more advanced than any other)

I agree with the sentiment, but I think the word "species" probably implies even more difference than there really is. Pardon my forgetting the exact percentages, but I do at least remember one point made in one of my Anthro classes: The genetic differences between human populations is actually very tiny. Highland and lowland gorillas are actually more genetically different from one another than any human group is from any other human group.

Originally posted by christ:

Like I said "white" = "racist". Welcome to doublethink.

I'm not sure how you draw this conclusion from the statements you made above -- but, whatever.

Again, I'm basically "on your side" as far as the points you're making ... but some of the specific arguments you've used (hairiness etc.) have actually been addressed/explained by evolutionary theorists.

[perryp]

Look at a world map. The only inhabited parts of the planet that are in the Southern Hemisphere are Tropical/sub-Tropical southern Africa (very close to where original black humans evolved), South America (whose native populations are relatively recent arrivals), and Australia (whose aboriginal population is black). There is only a tiny portion of inhabited land south of the equator that is in the temperate or arctic zones. Why would "whiteness" develop in any of these places?? Contrast to the huge temperate and arctic landmass of the northern hemisphere.

While 'whiteness' hasn't developed in the southern hemisphere, 'lightness' has. Witness people living on the Islands in the Pacific. Closer to the equator you have dark, african-looking people. And to the far south you have the Maoris (who are obviously lighter than the Australian Aborigines in the north.

Lighter pigmentation in the south is also evident in Africa. Look at the difference between former presidents of a Southern African (lighter reddish) coutry and a Central African one (darker brown).

[Krusty]

Originally posted by perryp:
While 'whiteness' hasn't developed in the southern hemisphere, 'lightness' has ...

Excellent point.

[OAW]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Thanks OAW. I'd appreciate a link if you can find one - that tribe would be very interesting to see.

Here's a couple I was able to dig up ...

http://www.adventist.org.au/SPD%5CAH...2569A800022AE3

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...UTF-8%26sa%3DN

OAW

[OAW]

Originally posted by perryp:
You keep saying this, but you provide no evidence. As such, your opinion has as much scientific validity as Creationism.

http://racerelations.about.com/libra.../aa021501a.htm

Originally posted by perryp:

Most Native Americans died because from diseases of which they had no immunity. Hence they were unsuitable for slavery. African slaves had stronger immune systems which is why they were preferred to Native Americans. The difference in immune systems is of course another indication that race is a biological reality.

Certainly most Native Americans were wiped out by the diseases that the Europeans brought with them. Some of these deaths were accidental ... others were quite intentional. Keep in mind that it is well known that times the British Army (Lord Jeffrey Amherst), some colonial settlers, and later the US Army essentially practiced biological warfare against the Native Americans by deliberately giving them smallpox infected blankets.

http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal...lord_jeff.html

http://www.wakeupmag.co.uk/articles/apartheid.htm

But I digress. The point is that the Native American's greater susceptibility to European diseases relative to African's has more to do with proximity than "race". The Native American and the European had an ocean between them. Unlike Europe and Africa, there was practically no trade, wars, intermingling or other forms of contact in which diseases could be spread. Additionally, don't forget that millions of Africans died from the "diseases of the white man" on the slave ships in the Middle Passage and never even made it to the shores of the Americas.

Originally posted by perryp:

Ah - so you are a creationist!

I don't see it as an "either-or" situation. Just because I don't believe in evolution in the sense of one species turning into another doesn't mean I'm a "creationist" trying to argue that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

OAW

[perryp]

Originally posted by OAW:
Certainly most Native Americans were wiped out by the diseases that the Europeans brought with them. Some of these deaths were accidental ... others were quite intentional. Keep in mind that it is well known that times the British Army (Lord Jeffrey Amherst), some colonial settlers, and later the US Army essentially practiced biological warfare against the Native Americans by deliberately giving them smallpox infected blankets.

Exactly. Europeans used the genetic RACIAL differences to their advantage. Likewise syphilis was brought back from North America by Europeans.

Originally posted by OAW:
But I digress. The point is that the Native American's greater susceptibility to European diseases relative to African's has more to do with proximity than "race". The Native American and the European had an ocean between them.

The lesser proximity resulted in racial differences. They caught diseases not because of the Atlantic ocean, but because of genetic differences.

Originally posted by OAW:
I don't see it as an "either-or" situation. Just because I don't believe in evolution in the sense of one species turning into another doesn't mean I'm a "creationist" trying to argue that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

What exactly do you believe? Nothing?

Race is a biological reality. Look at this article. In it, it says:
'By looking at the varying frequencies of these polymorphisms, they were able to distinguish five different groups of people whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains: sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas; East Asians; inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia; and Native Americans. They were also able to identify subgroups within each region that usually corresponded with each member's self-reported ethnicity. '

There is continuous variation, but denying the existence of well-formed clusters because of fuzzy boundaries is a classic statistical category error.

DNA markers indicate the presence of population groups

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by christ:
But if it can be proven false by observation, doesn't that prove that it is an erroneous theory?

"Can be" not "has been".

BG

[christ]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
"Can be" not "has been".

BG

But if it is true, it "can't be" disproven.

I'm only joshing - I understand the point.

Sorry for wasting your energy.

[christ]

Originally posted by Krusty:
I'm not sure how you draw this conclusion from the statements you made above -- but, whatever...

I didn't - I drew this conclusion (white = racist) from the following part of OAW's post:

[he presented an ideology that] centers around a deeply held, almost subconscious fear of the "genetic annihilation" of "white" people. That is, because of the dominant/recessive trait situation that I discussed above, the minority that wishes to preserve its existence as a phenotypically distinct group feels it must dominate and control the majority in order to prevent widespread interbreeding which would result in them being absorbed back into the fold

which, roughly translated appears to me to say "whites, being the minority, must use whatever means necessary to subjugate, and if possible destroy, other races" Which in turn translates pretty close to exactly to "whites are (and inddeed are bound to be) racists.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by perryp:
Europeans used the genetic RACIAL differences to their advantage.

nope. "use" implies a conscious choice, which certainly wasn't the case here.

Originally posted by perryp:

Race is a biological reality.

and wrong again. population groups exist in clines of genetic relations.

on the surface, it is quite easy to draw distinctions, but when looking at the genetic code and variants more closely, a lot of times, you will find that "superficially" opposite groups have more in common, than ones "close" to each other.

it really all depends on how much you look "into" the matter. when examined closely it is absolutely worthless to devide humans into races based on genetics (or anything else for that matter).

"racism" is a construct of the late 19th century, which, at the time, might have worked as a valid "identifier". but it's pretty much outta the door today.

[christ]

Originally posted by deekay1:
"racism" is a construct of the late 19th century

I would dispute this. Races/ Clans/ Religions have been fighting because of their differences ever since there were differences to fight over. It may be that the term 'racism' only grew to prominence in the 19thC, but I would hazard that the actual phenomenon has been around ever since the ability to discriminate between humans. It almost certainly exists in animals too - watch a family of chimps chase out a non-family member, or one pack of dogs set on another.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by christ:
I would dispute this. Races/ Clans/ Religions have been fighting because of their differences ever since there were differences to fight over. It may be that the term 'racism' only grew to prominence in the 19thC, but I would hazard that the actual phenomenon has been around ever since the ability to discriminate between humans. It almost certainly exists in animals too - watch a family of chimps chase out a non-family member, or one pack of dogs set on another.

i think you are confusing a few things here.

a) as far as your chimp example goes, you can also make the observation that, at times, chimps (and other primates) take "in" non family members and raise them as their own...

b) "race" is a specific term and does not mean "different" in general. sure there have been wares/fights/struggles throughout history.

but the question is: "does it make sense to devide human beings into different races?"

"what good does it do anybody?"

"does it further science, the arts, humanity, individuals, peoples?"

no, it doesnt! it simply divides. if you are looking at some really interesting ways to distinguish between humans (at least in the western and more "advanced" societies) - look at "consumer bahavior"! there is some really crazy stuff going on there!

[christ]

OK - but your statement wasn't that 'racism doesn't make sense' (which I can't disagree with), but that it is a construct of the late 19th century (which I can).

(As an example, the Egyptians and the Jews had some pretty mean stuff going on, which was probably down to ethnic, and religious, differences - which in modern parlance would definitely qualify as 'racism', and that was way before the nineteenth century!)

[perryp]

Originally posted by deekay1:
but the question is: "does it make sense to devide human beings into different races?"

"what good does it do anybody?"

That's a political question, not a scientific one.

Originally posted by deekay1:
and wrong again. population groups exist in clines of genetic relations.

You either didn't bother to read what I wrote, or you ignored it because you couldn't refute it. So I'll say it again:

Look at this article. In it, it says:
'By looking at the varying frequencies of these polymorphisms, they were able to distinguish five different groups of people whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains: sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas; East Asians; inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia; and Native Americans. They were also able to identify subgroups within each region that usually corresponded with each member's self-reported ethnicity. '

There is continuous variation, but denying the existence of well-formed clusters because of fuzzy boundaries is a classic statistical category error.

DNA markers indicate the presence of population groups:

[deekay1]

Originally posted by christ:
OK - but your statement wasn't that 'racism doesn't make sense' (which I can't disagree with), but that it is a construct of the late 19th century (which I can).

the term racism as such, and the ideology behind it (politically categorizing and discriminating (against) people in terms of their physical attributes (skin color etc.)) is largely a construct of the late nineteenth century.

Originally posted by christ:

(As an example, the Egyptians and the Jews had some pretty mean stuff going on, which was probably down to ethnic, and religious, differences - which in modern parlance would definitely qualify as 'racism', and that was way before the nineteenth century!)

see what i posted above.

and the "pretty mean stuff" going on between egyptians and "teh jews" was pretty much down to (socio)cultural and religious differences :: ...let my people gooooooooo ::

[deekay1]

Originally posted by perryp:
That's a political question, not a scientific one.

actually it's a philosophical one!

Originally posted by perryp:

You either didn't bother to read what I wrote, or you ignored it because you couldn't refute it.

Does Race Exist?

If races are defined as genetically discrete groups, no.

nuff said!

[perryp]

Originally posted by deekay1:
If races are defined as genetically discrete groups, no.

That's a straw man argument. No one is claiming they are genetically discreet, only that there are well-formed clusters. But I see you will continue to ignore the evidence for your own reasons.