Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:20 am Posts: 5198 Location: Connecticut Gender: Male
As far as I've always known, there are 4 races on Earth:
Caucasion Black Asian Native American
You must be one of those 4, or a combination of 2 or more.
As far as I've always known:
Hispanic is not a race Jews are not their own race Arabs are not their own race Indians are not their own race
Everyone I know wants to separate at least those 4 groups from being associated in any way with whites and blacks -- though I think many have accepted that a lot of Jews are in fact caucasion.
So am I wrong? I believe that a Hispanic can belong to 3 of those 4 (I've never heard of an asian hispanic), and many are a combination of two or three. Same with Jewish people, though maybe with less racial combining. I believe that Arabs and Indians are to be considered caucasion -- even if much or all of their land is in Asia, because, well, they certainly don't possess many Asian features.
I think the majority of America does not know the difference between race and ethnicity. Or maybe it's me.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:17 pm Posts: 13551 Location: is a jerk in wyoming Gender: Female
race2 /reɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reys] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity. 2. a population so related. 3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use. b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups. c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.
4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race. 5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race. 6. the human race or family; humankind: Nuclear weapons pose a threat to the race. 7. Zoology. a variety; subspecies. 8. a natural kind of living creature: the race of fishes. 9. any group, class, or kind, esp. of persons: Journalists are an interesting race. 10. the characteristic taste or flavor of wine. –adjective 11. of or pertaining to the races of humankind.
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:20 am Posts: 5198 Location: Connecticut Gender: Male
warehouse wrote:
you forgot "Other"
Well yeah, that's my point. There is no other. I think (and no offense to many of you) that the descendents of Western Europe don't want to be associated with any of these groups, and have conveniently come up with a system that separates them from other caucasians.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:17 pm Posts: 13551 Location: is a jerk in wyoming Gender: Female
Sandler wrote:
warehouse wrote:
you forgot "Other"
Well yeah, that's my point. There is no other. I think (and no offense to many of you) that the descendents of Western Europe don't want to be associated with any of these groups, and have conveniently come up with a system that separates them from other caucasians.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:17 pm Posts: 13551 Location: is a jerk in wyoming Gender: Female
Quote:
Usage Note: The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. The traditional terms for these populations—Caucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoid—are now controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some cases they may well be considered offensive. (Caucasian does retain a certain currency in American English, but it is used almost exclusively to mean "white" or "European" rather than "belonging to the Caucasian race," a group that includes a variety of peoples generally categorized as nonwhite.) The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and other points—such as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in another—many cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact.
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:20 am Posts: 5198 Location: Connecticut Gender: Male
I don't get your post Malice.
A black person in America has absolutely nothing in common with a black person from Kenya. Well, maybe a few do, but you get my point. They share similar physical characteristics, and are therefore part of the same race. Not the same culture necessarily, but the same race.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:17 pm Posts: 13551 Location: is a jerk in wyoming Gender: Female
Sandler wrote:
I don't get your post Malice.
A black person in America has absolutely nothing in common with a black person from Kenya. Well, maybe a few do, but you get my point. They share similar physical characteristics, and are therefore part of the same race. Not the same culture necessarily, but the same race.
first. read the usage note I posted after that. and second, in simple terms, the idea of race is antiquated and largely biased.
As far as most of the scientific community is concerned, there is no such thing, unless you want to start dividing people up into subsystems of such narrow proportions that to do so would mean trying to classify each person as being their own race, since there's too many variables to determine: this person is this race because of the following factors etc etc.
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:20 am Posts: 5198 Location: Connecticut Gender: Male
This world should either abandon the idea of race and stick to ethnicities to group people, or recognize that you can't segregate people of your own race because they look a little bit different and have very different lifestyles.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:17 pm Posts: 13551 Location: is a jerk in wyoming Gender: Female
Sandler wrote:
This world should either abandon the idea of race and stick to ethnicities to group people, or recognize that you can't segregate people of your own race because they look a little bit different and have very different lifestyles.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:29 pm Posts: 6217 Location: Evil Bunny Land
malice wrote:
Sandler wrote:
I don't get your post Malice.
A black person in America has absolutely nothing in common with a black person from Kenya. Well, maybe a few do, but you get my point. They share similar physical characteristics, and are therefore part of the same race. Not the same culture necessarily, but the same race.
first. read the usage note I posted after that. and second, in simple terms, the idea of race is antiquated and largely biased.
As far as most of the scientific community is concerned, there is no such thing, unless you want to start dividing people up into subsystems of such narrow proportions that to do so would mean trying to classify each person as being their own race, since there's too many variables to determine: this person is this race because of the following factors etc etc.
The scientific community still is concerned with race.
There are some physical traits associated with race that are unquestionable. People of Native American descent have a predisposition to diabetes. Only people of Black and Pacific Island descent can get sickle cell anemia, etc...
The first three things you are going to see on any medical history are your Age, Gender, and Race.
_________________ “Some things have got to be believed to be seen.”
- Ralph Hodgson
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:17 pm Posts: 13551 Location: is a jerk in wyoming Gender: Female
Gimme Some Skin wrote:
malice wrote:
Sandler wrote:
I don't get your post Malice.
A black person in America has absolutely nothing in common with a black person from Kenya. Well, maybe a few do, but you get my point. They share similar physical characteristics, and are therefore part of the same race. Not the same culture necessarily, but the same race.
first. read the usage note I posted after that. and second, in simple terms, the idea of race is antiquated and largely biased.
As far as most of the scientific community is concerned, there is no such thing, unless you want to start dividing people up into subsystems of such narrow proportions that to do so would mean trying to classify each person as being their own race, since there's too many variables to determine: this person is this race because of the following factors etc etc.
The scientific community still is concerned with race.
There are some physical traits associated with race that are unquestionable. People of Native American descent have a predisposition to diabetes. Only people of Black and Pacific Island descent can get sickle cell anemia, etc...
Native Americans are postulated to being originally from the far East last I heard on whatever Nova etc show I saw on the subject.
and really it makes no difference, Race, in the terms this kid is talking about is not so much a medical classification system as a way to provide a socially imposed distance between "Whites" and "Everyone Else"
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
