The history of what 'the racists' refer to as race

Months ago the race argument was taken in directions irrelevent to my interest in the subject. And I was almost tricked into thinking I was losing an argument. But alas, the final episode of the series 'the human journey' just reminded me of the significance of race.
Biology? Genetics? Please don't talk about those things in here. Humans are all members of the same sub-species, of course, but there is this nagging unavoidable little thing called history that demands we acknowledge the differences between the races of human beings.
Believe it or not skin colours(along with many other phenotypical traits) used to be shared throughout regions inhabitted by human beings. Like all people in area a would have dark skin, wooly hair, broad noses and big lips, all people in area f would have light skin, wavy hair, thin noses and relatively thin lips.
This is how it actually was, it is not a matter of opinion.
Also, not a matter of opinion, is the fact that different behaviours accompanied different phenotypical traits. It is not a matter of opinion that 20 000 years ago the group 'racists' refer to as caucasoids were in europe making textiles, pottery and sculptures, carving ivory needles and harpoons, making ivory flutes, making realistic rock paintings, making shelters, establishing territories as organised communites of individuals with different tasks and so on. Meanwhile 20 000 years ago the group racists refer to australoids were in australia behaving much like homo-sapiens did 75 000 years ago in europe. Slight modifications due to the environment but essentially the same. Negroids (as racists call them) were in africa behaving as they did in africa 100 000 years ago. Slight cultural evolution but basically the same. It is not a matter of opinion that caucasoids did more. The amounts of what each group did could be measured and we would definately come to the conclusion that the people with white skin did more shit.
Now this sounds like something a racist would say, and I imagine they would use this information for their own agenda, but is the information incorrect?
If we are objective is it not imperative that we acknowledge this history?
A group of humans went north from the middle east, they branched into mongoloids and caucasoids. There were certain behaviours shared by mongoloids and caucasoids that negroids and australoids did not exhibit. I can feel you getting outraged but am I lieing yet? See thats the thing, the truth is what it is, if people use it as an excuse for hatred thats too bad, if they didn't have that they'd use something else, it shouldn't be the responsibility of the truth to alter itself in order to reduce bigotry.

Those 4 racial categories are used by anthropologists, not just racists. I would actually agree they are not clear, obviously, they are used to get a general idea, they could be broken down into more categories, or even reduced into 1 category. You could keep going untill you were at mammals or animals, life even. Whatever you do will be correct as long as the categorising is in correlation with human migration.
Just as we can determine between individuals we can continue in that direction to distinguish between families and if we had enough words we could continue to categorise many times before we got close to categorising the whole human species as 1.
And each time you'd categorise you'd be correct, that is an individual, that is a family, that is an extended family, and later yes that is a race.
Families share characteristics, and a group of families that share general characteristics is a race. Its more than skin colour, its every thing.
Every individual is different, but you can be more similar to some than others, a race is a group that is basically the same, its a very broad category, but the races are clearly different from one another in many ways.
If this causes hatred then thats too bad. I'm not a preschool teacher responsible for everyone playing together peacefully and science shouldn't try to be one either.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You know that this is not true. What does this mean for the rest of your post?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah its not exactly true, I planned on pointing out what each race was doing 20 000 years ago but lost enthusiasm.
Its basically true. My neglect of fine detail doesn't mean anything for the rest of my post

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I wasn't even trying to insult negroids I was just pointing out how caucasoids and negroids were different in more ways than outward appearance at this stage. They were different animals behaving differently.

Even though I said its not my responsibility to be a peace keeping preschool teacher I think the truth could help us to understand why judging other races is pointless and wrong.
A big part of racist arguments is pointing out how blacks generally commit many crimes and live in poverty in modern society.
With history we can see they never adapted to modern society. Caucasoids spent thousands of years naturally progressing towards modern society. But negroids were taken out of their natural environment and thrown into the modern society that they weren't prepared for. Australoids too but the difference being it was on their own land. They were still thrown into a society they weren't adapted to.
Racists will say they are lesser people because they sniff petrol and bum around our caucasoid civilisations. But when you look at it from the natural perspective its akin to introducing a species into a foreign environment. Wild boars don't fit in with the american eco-system. Its the same principal. The race therefore is clearly not to be blamed, it only ever adapted to the lifestyle it adapted to and caucasoids being disappointed in the behaviour of african americans or australian aborigines while in caucasoid living conditions is akin to an african bushmen being disappointed in a caucasoid visitor for getting sunburnt and becoming exhausted while in bushmen living conditions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dr Lou:

Even within the context of your post there remains a problem. The biological factors have nothing to do with the cultural factors. All white people do not have the same culture, nor do all blacks, or Asians, or whatever. Meanwhile some groups from different races have very similar cultures, very often we find that their similarity is due to similar environments. People very far apart faced with similar challenges often invented very similar solutions independently.

Western 'Caucasoid' culture is basically an extension of Roman and Greek cultures which were strongly influenced by Persian and Egyptian cultures. All of these cultures were very strongly influenced by Indo-European culture.

You notion of technological advances is also way off track. You depict the Caucasoid group as significantly advanced over other groups 20,000 years ago but this is not evinced by the archaeological evidence. In fact, the specific 'Upper Paleolithic' development you're speaking of didn't develop in Europe but was spread to Europe from the Middle East and Asia. There is also evidence that similar technologies developed in Africa much earlier.

But this also has nothing to do with race. Nor does a technologically less advanced culture signify that the culture is less advanced in all areas of development.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Neolithic-Age
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/china/ancient_china/neolithic.html
http://www.louisville.edu/a-s/history/herlin/textsup.htm
http://www.originsnet.org/eraup.html

~Raithere

 

It doesn't matter how you dress it up Dr Lou. This is still the same old racist bullshit. Been snifing petrol fumes, have you?

~Raither

 

there are now FIVE ongoing threads on race in humans!!!!!!!!!!

I wonder how many we can go.

I think I'll open one up in world events.

See if we really can include everyone in this inane discussion started and perpetuated by racists like BigD.

 

Well congratulations! You weren't "even trying to insult negroids" yet in the next sentence you imply that Caucasoids and Negroids are "different animals"! How can we be "different animals" when we are all the same species?

You obviously are very limited in your outlook on life and can only see that 'Caucasoids' are superior to these other poor creatures. The irony is that you must see yourself as quite enlightened! To anyone else it is fairly obvious you have no real grasp of anthropology, history, genetics, archaeology or anything else for that matter.

Symbolic, human culture more than likely began in Africa around 90,000 years ago and spread outwards from there. The fact that there was a 'technological explosion', so to speak, in Eurasia 30,000 - 20,000 ago, doesn't mean that those people were any more advanced than contemporary African populations. The reason for this development in material culture was driven by environmental factors. Such factors pressure populations into adapting both themselves and their environments to survive. Nontheless, all modern Homo sapiens have the same capacity and abilities, no matter where on the planet they are found.

You are not being serious are you?!

Black Africans in the Americas and Aboriginals in Australia were treated as slaves and considered as part of the natural fauna, respectively. Being abused and subjugated as inferior races for a couple of hundred years, I would guess, might have had some impact on their smooth transgression into western societies! Indeed the fact that they were not even considered part of those societies may also have had an impact on their adaption to (as you so ignorantly and racistly put it) "our caucosoid civilisations." This legacy is still felt and myriad social and economic factors impact on the lesser achievements and attainments of some groups in society today.

Therefore, I'd agree with you that history is important to the obective study of the human story. But to use history as a means to shore up a shoddy, inane, argument that one race is superior to another is not being objective: it is simply being racist.

 

Is this true?

The Negro jaw is substantially longer, relative to its width, than the White jaw. A feature of the Negro lower jaw is its retention of a vestige of the "simian shelf," a bony region immediately behind the incisors. The simian shelf is a distinguishing characteristic of apes, and it is absent in Whites.

 

And both whites and chimpanzees have rather small noses.

Nor would the Negro's allegedly "simian" features show them to be closer to the apes - humans and chimpanzees have not shared a common ancestor for millions of years. As this is the case, no race is more "apelike" in descent than another.

 

Franq you're a jackass, your own prejudice is what makes you percieve me as prejudice. You think its offensive when I say races are different animals (meaning in the behavioural sense so the fact they are the same species is irrelevent). Where did I say one was worse than the other?
Yeah think about it, and then think about what a biggot you are and try to come to terms with that.
You are the one demanding all people behave like white people. Your type is responsible for the state of aborigines and african americans today.
Its ridiculous because white people aren't even my favourite people. I can just acknowledge what they are responsible for.
Racist my ass.
Big D is a racist, sorry D, but its really obvious.
However I would argue you are all more racist than me. Your reaction says it all, the fact you think me saying black people don't fit in with white society is an insult shows you are a racist. I would say why should they fit in with white society? I don't make the assumption that white society is better than their natural society. In fact in my personal opinion their natural society is much better and something I would be proud of if I was black. Being white I have to just not be proud of my race, because its accomplishments are all things I oppose.
Call me a racist, it says more about you than me because untill I say 'I hate black people and white people are better' you're using your own pre-concieved prejudices to reach that conclusion.

 

This nose looks pretty big to me:
http://www.junglewalk.com/AnimalImage.asp?AnimalImageID=4859

The nose is thick, broad and flat, often turned up nostrils exposing the red inner lining of the mucous membrane similar to an ape.

 

That's a gorilla, Big D, not a chimpanzee. Pre-hominids and gorillas' ancestors split about 7-9 million years ago, chimps and hominiods about 5-7 million years ago. We're closest to the chimpanzee.
www.brainmuseum.org/specimens/primates/chimp/

 

Did someone just jumble the order of the posts?

For the record I judge people on an individual basis as well.
But I think a collaboration of mongoloids will behave differently than a collaboration of australoids if you put them in the same environment. I think in that time that the races were seperate they became different from one another in many unseen ways on top of the phenotypical.
I think the same can be said to a lesser degree with family lines within the same race. I have a huge family of cousins and uncles and aunties and although we are individuals I have noticed there are subtle ways we are similar when compared to people we aren't related to.
I think this would extend to race as well, it just logically follows that it would. And we can all see the behavioural differences, we just try to blame oppression and whatever we can rather than acknowedging the differences between races. I think as soon as we did that we could begin catering appropriately for each race, rather than just whining about this or that.
Australoids when thrown into a european society aren't likely to mesh perfectly, there are exceptions, but its more accurate to talk about the 'in general' than the exceptions wouldn't you say?
They never developed alcohol themselves, and now get drunk very easily and easily addicted to it. I don't think its a coincidence, as soon as populations seperate they begin becoming different in many ways. There is no doubt in my mind that races are different, and families are different and individuals are different. Acknowledging race can lead to understanding different people and their needs. Its essential in understanding people. Ancestry in general is essential in understanding people, its essential in understanding living things period.
There are bound to be some traits shared by the homo-sapiens that were isolated in australia for 50 000 years. We can see the physical, but on every level this group of people is bound to differ from a group somewhere else. Its just natural. And it applies to every population, even if some were mixing. There wasn't a dedicated breeding program designed to keep humans the same which involved teleportation devices and someone in control making sure people never bred with someone from their own region. So a little mixing wasn't enough to affect the big picture, mostly populations were breeding within themselves and adapting to their own environments and lifestyles.
This is why there are so many breeds of dog, no one denies the differences between dog breeds. We know that technically they are all the same species and we know that some mixing has gone on and we know there is alot of variation within single breeds and so on and so forth. But we don't care, because generally we can say greyhounds are faster than pomeranians and be right, we can say mastiffs sleep more than jack russels, we can say a whole lot of things and in having this knowledge we can accomodate for breeds based on the animal we know they are. What we are doing with humans is like forcing a range of breeds to hunt wild boar even though only one of them is suited to that lifestyle and the others aren't.

 

the full racist quote:

 

Dr Lou Natic,

Thanks for your kind words. A couple of points...

To start with I do believe that everyone, to a greater or lesser extent, is prejudiced. Knowing your own prejudices, however, allows you to challenge them.

You said;

Steady on fella! How do you work that one out? I think that people should behave like people. Different populations do behave in different ways, hence we have what we call 'cultures'. All cultures are equally valid and worthy. They are the result of the cultural evolution of these disparate groups in relation to their environments and to the interactions of individuals among them. I would not argue that any culture is superior to another, nor that any group of people should behave like another.


Of races you ask:

I agree that you don't explicitly say this but I believe that your argument implies it. Of course it might just be my preconceived prejudice of you that leads me to this conclusion. However, the following quote of yours, does seem to imply that Eurasian peoples "did more shit" and so the other groups, by comparison, are 'worse'.

I admit that is only my interpretation of what you say but I am led to that conclusion because your argument seems to equate culture with race. That is something I don't think necessarily follows. Culturall groups do exist yet races, no matter how hard you try to catergorise and define them, can not be pinpointed in the same way. Also the facts that you insist upon in your argument are not completely accurate. You are generalising and not including a lot of other relevant data.

The progression of your logic leads me to conclude that you believe that people of different 'races' can't live equally alongside one in society. Why not?

Finally;

I just thought that was funny! I knew you were prejudiced...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, I don't know who split from what at what time, but

Blacks are clearly the humans that look most like apes.

 

* Without reading the whole thread (I am in a hurry) *

Perhaps the reason why white people "did more" is because we had a defferent environment to cope with. If we were stuck in the middle of the desert, perhaps we would have adapted and had similar traits to other races.

 

You, on the other hand, seem to have more in common with a potato.

~Raithere

 

What kind of potato? But, you probably think ALL potatos are the same.

 

A baby, redskinned potato mashed and with dill, butter and lemon on top.