How Many Races Are There?

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


Skin color is one. I am a white male. My wife is hispanic. When we go to Schlitterbahn, we have different tactics on how we approach our day based on the differences in our skin color. Me? I have to wear a t-shirt, or risk looking like Mr Crabs. She just gets darker (and prettier) the longer she is out.

Hair. My hair is blondish/brown, soft, and wavy. My neice, however, is half black. Her hair is curly and course. When she has spent the night at our house, we have had to apply different care to her hair because of this.

Disease predisposition. Black people, due to some genetic bottlenecking (as a response to malaria) has a higher rate of sickle cell anemia (as an example).

Facial appearance. We don't have say that the Olmec statues look "Afrocentric" for nothing. Nor would we expect to find long flowing hair and beards on people from Peru.

Learned characteristics. You have to admit, other cultures are different. Even subcultures within a culture.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

 

Skin color is one. I am a white male. My wife is hispanic. When we go to Schlitterbahn, we have different tactics on how we approach our day based on the differences in our skin color. Me? I have to wear a t-shirt, or risk looking like Mr Crabs. She just gets darker (and prettier) the longer she is out.

Hair. My hair is blondish/brown, soft, and wavy. My neice, however, is half black. Her hair is curly and course. When she has spent the night at our house, we have had to apply different care to her hair because of this.
Why?

Disease predisposition. Black people, due to some genetic bottlenecking (as a response to malaria) has a higher rate of sickle cell anemia (as an example).

Thats actually a genetic variant across a lot of equatitorial races.

www.faqs.org...
www.blackhealthcare.com...
www.ornl.gov...
www.answers.com...

Facial appearance. We don't have say that the Olmec statues.
look "Afrocentric" for nothing. Nor would we expect to find long flowing hair and beards on people from Peru.


Olmecs were native americans not africans. en.wikipedia.org...

What about the oldest bloodline of humans on the planet
www.aznlover.com...
They have asian looking faces, light causasian looking skin, african noses,tall curly haired...I guess thats a good idea what humans looked like long ago.


Learned characteristics. You have to admit, other cultures are different. Even subcultures within a culture.

how is that?

I hate the term race. I look at this way I am a paste pale blond with light colored eyes, everyone except an albino is going to have darker skin than I do, just different genetic traits.
Lets take 8 people 4 males and 4 females. Better yet lets make them siblings. In appearance they all have medium brown hair and eyes, medium colored skin average height weighted, ect. Now lets put 1 of each sex on 4 different planets, and check back in a few thousand years after they have populated the planets. (forget the whole incest thing for the purpose of what I am trying to convey) You are going to get 4 very different races even though the four races came from the same family. They will be very different in appearance but each race will still be related though their ancestors.
So I guess what I am trying to say is we are all one big happy(ok maybe not happy, but then again what family doesn't have their problems) FAMILY.

Nice thread !

I've got to agree with sky floating on the first page of the thread.
Our differences are beautiful. Are cultures are the same.

Differences don't cause racism. People do.

People like to think in boxes. Once a box is assigned to you, it's easy to develop prejudice towards that box.

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

 

Skin color is one. I am a white male. My wife is hispanic. When we go to Schlitterbahn, we have different tactics on how we approach our day based on the differences in our skin color. Me? I have to wear a t-shirt, or risk looking like Mr Crabs. She just gets darker (and prettier) the longer she is out.

Hair. My hair is blondish/brown, soft, and wavy. My neice, however, is half black. Her hair is curly and course. When she has spent the night at our house, we have had to apply different care to her hair because of this.
Why?

You might ask a black person. I have heard the explanation from others in the past, but cannot recall.

But if you treat a black persons hair like you would a white persons hair it can cause problems with appearance.

Regardless, we just do it the way her mom tells us. Taking the time to groom your loved ones is a great way to make touching memories.

Disease predisposition. Black people, due to some genetic bottlenecking (as a response to malaria) has a higher rate of sickle cell anemia (as an example).

Thats actually a genetic variant across a lot of equatitorial races.

www.faqs.org...
www.blackhealthcare.com...
www.ornl.gov...
www.answers.com...

Right, because it makes you resistant to malaria. But you hit a key word: genetic variant across a lot of equatorial RACES. So we have genetic differences being displayed?

Facial appearance. We don't have say that the Olmec statues.
look "Afrocentric" for nothing. Nor would we expect to find long flowing hair and beards on people from Peru.


Olmecs were native americans not africans. en.wikipedia.org...

What about the oldest bloodline of humans on the planet
www.aznlover.com...
They have asian looking faces, light causasian looking skin, african noses,tall curly haired...I guess thats a good idea what humans looked like long ago.

Olmecs lived in S. America, but it is noticed that they looked VERY african. We don't know from where they hailed. I was merely making note that an American race was called "Afrocentric" in appearance to describe the way they looked: like people from Africa. But the info you provided is very interesting. Thanks for sharing it.

Learned characteristics. You have to admit, other cultures are different. Even subcultures within a culture.

how is that?

If you are American, you no doubt are familiar with the black American culture. You likely know some folks who are black Americans.

If you have ever met a black person from Africa, you will note (rather immediately) the cultural difference of these two people who share the same bloodlines.

Or, in India the lowest caste, the Dalit ('untouchable") caste, due to its pariah type nature, have a vastly different set of cultural actions than, say, a caste of nobility.

Humans have found a way to represent just about every iteration possible culturally and in appearance. Like Sinter Klaas and Skyfloating said, the differences add to our overall strength and beauty.

[edit on 17-4-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

The notion of Race is an artificial social construct with no basis in scientific fact. There is only one Human race, namely Homo Sapiens Sapiens and there are no subspecies.

Way back in 1950 UNESCO tried to educate nations to talk about Ethnic Group rather than Race, but people continue to remain ignorant of the facts. Even the US census gets it wrong. So long as people believe that there are different races, there will be racism.

Originally posted by Terapin
The notion of Race is an artificial social construct with no basis in scientific fact. There is only one Human race, namely Homo Sapiens Sapiens and there are no subspecies.

Way back in 1950 UNESCO tried to educate nations to talk about Ethnic Group rather than Race, but people continue to remain ignorant of the facts. Even the US census gets it wrong. So long as people believe that there are different races, there will be racism.

Dogs are genetically the same, too. But there are obvious differences, due to minor genetic variations created through isolation and bottlenecking.

Until you can overcome the obvious, if superficial, difference you cannot make a claim that there are no differences. Persistant insistance is not indicative of fact. "Scientific fact" is based on what is observed.

It does not mean that one should be racist. It isn't the fact that people look differently that is the issue. It is delicate human ego that is the problem. Trying to fix racism by changing the name from "Race" to "ethnic culture" is nothing but smoke and mirrors. I can rename "turd" to "chocolate", but people still won't eat it.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Dogs are genetically the same, too. But there are obvious differences, due to minor genetic variations created through isolation and bottlenecking.

So... are you saying there are different 'races' of dogs because of those variations? If you do think that, then I understand your way of relating that to humans.

If not, then you can't.

Originally posted by masqua

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Dogs are genetically the same, too. But there are obvious differences, due to minor genetic variations created through isolation and bottlenecking.

So... are you saying there are different 'races' of dogs because of those variations? If you do think that, then I understand your way of relating that to humans.

If not, then you can't.

In dogs, the word "race" is never used. The word used is "breed". Just like in geese the children are called "goslings" and not "kittens". Different types of animals have different names applied to the same phenomena within their specific grouping.

In dogs they call it "breed". In humans, it is called "race". I would agree to call it by any name, as long as we are honest enough to recognize it, and embrace it. "Ethnicity" is as good as anything, i suppose, too.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
"Ethnicity" is as good as anything, i suppose, too.

That's the choir I'm singing with.

Originally posted by masqua

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
"Ethnicity" is as good as anything, i suppose, too.

That's the choir I'm singing with.

Well, and thats great.


But it amounts to changing a word, nothing more. If we started saying "ethnicity", in a few years we would have people in sheets, marching as some "ethnist" group.

It isn't the word. It is the concept, the notion. You have to fix peoples minds, not their vernacular.

well how do you feel africans are different than say an asian person?

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
well how do you feel africans are different than say an asian person?

Not to seem rude, but is this really that hard to understand? Perhaps you are blind, and unable to see?

Lets draw an analogy:

An african is to an asian, what a poodle is to a spaniel. Different appearance, same animal.

Yet we have no issue noticing the differences in dogs. Why not humans?

Ignoring something doesn't make it go away. If it did, deaths from cancer would likely be far, far lower.

[edit on 17-4-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
But it amounts to changing a word, nothing more. If we started saying "ethnicity", in a few years we would have people in sheets, marching as some "ethnist" group.

The fact remains that, up until the 1700's, there was no notion of race. What was called 'nations' was turned into 'race'.

Talk about changing words.

I believe there is a bit of a difference between the concept of ethnicity and seperate races too.

It isn't the word. It is the concept, the notion. You have to fix peoples minds, not their vernacular.

It IS the word. Racial division IS meaningful and has caused extreme silliness for almost 4 centuries; a 'King of the Hill' kind of silliness, constructed to facilitate a false superiority through the promotion of an unfounded 'science'. As far as Klukkers using ethnicity rather than 'race' for their own particular brand of extremism, I have no doubt they would if the idea of racialism vanished completely from the face of the earth.

I can see the banners now: "Ethnic Purity saith the Lord Thy God... or else!"

sp

[edit on 17/4/10 by masqua]

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
well how do you feel africans are different than say an asian person?

Not to seem rude, but is this really that hard to understand? Perhaps you are blind, and unable to see?

Lets draw an analogy:

An african is to an asian, what a poodle is to a spaniel. Different appearance, same animal.

Yet we have no issue noticing the differences in dogs. Why not humans?

Ignoring something doesn't make it go away. If it did, deaths from cancer would likely be far, far lower.

[edit on 17-4-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

What are these differences I am ignorant of them. Please fill us in.

reply to post by masqua


Before racism there was nationalism. You are correct. The same concept was moved into a new word to account for a changed global environment.

In the US you cannot be nationalist if you are a bigot, because you share your nation with so many other cultural backgrounds. So to iterate your bigotry, you must change "nationalism" into "racism".

It isn't the word. It is the poisoned logic of humanity. That is the battle you need to fight.

Just like getting the "N" word out of the daily use in the US hasn't stopped racism. There is just racism without the use of the "N" word.

I agree with your sentiment. It is a great philosophical concept. In action, it will be perverted by the constant flow of evolution in language, as influenced by the daily usage of its speakers.

The word "Fag" has had a very storied past. Originally it was a burning piece of wood. Then it became a term for homosexuals, used derogatorily. Now, it would seem that is references someone who is a jerk. When i say the word "fag" i don't have any reference to gay people, unless the jerk i am talking about happens to be gay. I realize it is offensive to some people...but they fail to recognize that words change meaning, especially as spoken in the daily vernacular of pop culture.


Race, as a word, was used originally by people who were full of nationalistic pride. They did not want to admit that the people that they wanted to dehumanize were actually humans like themselves. So they called them a different "race".

Since then, the word has come to mean quite a bit more. But the average person understands it to mean that it references the various groupings of people based on their outward appearance.

like you say, you can change the word to ethnicity. But it will conceptualize in the exact same way as the word "race" does. What race originally meant only matters to the people who spoke that language at that time.

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
well how do you feel africans are different than say an asian person?

Not to seem rude, but is this really that hard to understand? Perhaps you are blind, and unable to see?

Lets draw an analogy:

An african is to an asian, what a poodle is to a spaniel. Different appearance, same animal.

Yet we have no issue noticing the differences in dogs. Why not humans?

Ignoring something doesn't make it go away. If it did, deaths from cancer would likely be far, far lower.

[edit on 17-4-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

What are these differences I am ignorant of them. Please fill us in.

I am not going to make time for a silly, disingenuous debate with you. If you wish to be honest, we can discuss this.

Otherwise, i can only assume that if you lack the insight to notice the physical differences (or to acknowledge the medical and genetic differences that drives these physical differences), you may lack the insight to continue this conversation with me.

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
well how do you feel africans are different than say an asian person?

Not to seem rude, but is this really that hard to understand? Perhaps you are blind, and unable to see?

Lets draw an analogy:

An african is to an asian, what a poodle is to a spaniel. Different appearance, same animal.

Yet we have no issue noticing the differences in dogs. Why not humans?

Ignoring something doesn't make it go away. If it did, deaths from cancer would likely be far, far lower.

[edit on 17-4-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

What are these differences I am ignorant of them. Please fill us in.

Just to be clear, you have asked the same question repeatedly in different ways. I have answered your question to my satisfaction. If you have specific clarifying points, please feel free to ask me (but quit feigning stupidity).

Posted earlier on this page:

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

 

Skin color is one. I am a white male. My wife is hispanic. When we go to Schlitterbahn, we have different tactics on how we approach our day based on the differences in our skin color. Me? I have to wear a t-shirt, or risk looking like Mr Crabs. She just gets darker (and prettier) the longer she is out.

Hair. My hair is blondish/brown, soft, and wavy. My neice, however, is half black. Her hair is curly and course. When she has spent the night at our house, we have had to apply different care to her hair because of this.

Disease predisposition. Black people, due to some genetic bottlenecking (as a response to malaria) has a higher rate of sickle cell anemia (as an example).

Facial appearance. We don't have say that the Olmec statues look "Afrocentric" for nothing. Nor would we expect to find long flowing hair and beards on people from Peru.

Learned characteristics. You have to admit, other cultures are different. Even subcultures within a culture.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Very well said and I agree with everything you say except how 'ethnicity' can be construed with the same superior connotations as 'race' still holds in some quarters. Some people in N. America look down their nose at anyone coming from Mexico by making general negative statements about their ways. We hear such things all the time on the news, on ATS and even more in private conversations, but, when you think about it, the Spanish influence in the gene pool has GOT to be as large as the Aztec roots themselves. The mixing has been going on for nearly 500 years.

So... when talking 'race' regarding Mexicans, it makes no sense and neither does ethnicity. When people speak disparingly about the people themselves in general, they do so against the nation.

In that way, racism and nationalism are like two fingers on the same hand and, no doubt, ethnicity could be a third. Sexual preference might be a fourth and religion the fifth to make that fist of oppression.

Ways and means.

reply to post by masqua


Jumping into your discussion.

Is it not common we people feel better then others because we think our lifestyle is the most correct and or civilised one around ?

This way any other is regarded as lower so we look down on it.
Ironic is it that those we usually look down on are the ones which are the closest to a natural balance around.

Anyway.
What you call racism has always been around but do to the problems they cause or where the difference fades away or becomes mainstream the whole concept is given another name. People feel like they are better then before and nationalism etc. Does are a thing of the past.

The reason why racism is used is IMO the colonial era. where our different appearances and cultural differences became mainstream.

The ones in power used it in their best interests to conquer and divide.

Just my two cents.