Classification of Human Race

Pighead

Hello there,its quite nice in here isn't it.Not like that rowdy After Hours place.
Anyway question for the masses from Pighead.
I was just wondering about the different types of human ie Caucasian,Negro etc
Does anybody have a definitive answer as to how many groups we are classified under.
I've tried googling it but to no avail.I'm not sure if hispanic and latino are sub groups or actual groups and whats a frenchman called,Caucasian or latino and what about an aussie?Caucasian?
So many questions my heads about to burst
Please help me

nesf

Enjoy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race

Pighead

nesf wrote:

Enjoy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race

Thanks nesf,had a look at that myself but it seemed a tad inconclusive.
From what i could gather it named
* Australoid
* Blacks
* Caucasian race
* Caucasoid
* Mongoloid
* Negroid
* Whites
as the 7 races.However this doesnt seem to cover hispanics or latinos
still confused and still a need for this smiley.

nesf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_of_human_races Would be the next thing to read.


Are you asking in regard to actual biological differences or the common thinking behind them? They are very different in this case.


The wiki, didn't name 7 races, it outlined past and present thinking on them. Latinos and Hispanics are just vague American terms iirc. I could be wrong though.

Pighead

Yeah i realise my post is quite confusing,the main reason for this is my state of confusion on the matter!
Basically i'm asking this.
Caucasion=white male/female
Negro=black male female
etc
Now Pighead wants to know what are the above classifications called?And how many are there altogether and finally what are the rest of the list called
Still confusing i know!

simu

They're arbitrary classifications ultimately and will be defined differently depending on the aims of the classifier. Live with the incertitude!!!

Pighead

What do you mean "depending on the aims of the classifier"?
What if the aim of the classifier was to put Pighead out of his misery and to finally put this question to bed?
Does this mean that there is no specific answer to my question? (love that wee fella)
Surely there must be an official race classifier in our midst
Heres what i perceive to be the answer:
Caucasians
Negroids
Australoid
Latino
Hispanic
I know this is wrong but its the answer i'm using from now on

simu

Pighead wrote:

What do you mean "depending on the aims of the classifier"?

Depending on who you want to exclude/discriminate aganist/give preferential treatment to/glorify etc.

What if the aim of the classifier was to put Pighead out of his misery and to finally put this question to bed?
Does this mean that there is no specific answer to my question? (love that wee fella)
Surely there must be an official race classifier in our midst
Heres what i perceive to be the answer:
Caucasians
Negroids
Australoid
Latino
Hispanic
I know this is wrong but its the answer i'm using from now on

Life can't be 100% free of misery, I'm afraid (although misery can be reduced - like the way I found boards logged into your account in a cybercafé one day but didn't wreak havoc with it!). Anyways, go with your own system if it makes you happy but remember that we're all human and should be treated as such!

Pighead

simu wrote:

Depending on who you want to exclude/discriminate aganist/give preferential treatment to/glorify etc.



Life can't be 100% free of misery, I'm afraid (although misery can be reduced - like the way I found boards logged into your account in a cybercafé one day but didn't wreak havoc with it!). Anyways, go with your own system if it makes you happy but remember that we're all human and should be treated as such!

Your right simu,Pighead has to accept that sometimes there just isn't a right answer.
Thanks for your input my caucasian friend and also thanks for not wreaking havoc with my account.Pighead always forgets to log off. :rolleyes:
PS did you read my PM's?Juicy arent they!
Thread Closed

Hagar

There is a definitive answer...

Us and them.

simu

Pighead wrote:

Your right simu,Pighead has to accept that sometimes there just isn't a right answer.
Thanks for your input my caucasian friend and also thanks for not wreaking havoc with my account.Pighead always forgets to log off. :rolleyes:
PS did you read my PM's?Juicy arent they!
Thread Closed

Eh, okay.

Didn't read your PMs - waiting for your autobiography to hit the shelves instead.

nesf

Well, ok, look at it this way. Ask yourself these questions.

One: Is there such a thing as races? Are they just a social construct or do they have scientific basis? Or does such not interest you?

Two: Let's say you think that races exist. Are you using the word race for different ethnic groupings or something else? i.e. Are you looking at race describing culture or physical biological differences?

Three: Decide on what criteria you wish to distinguish the races on. Skin colour, genetics, whatever.


That will help you ask the right question. Atm you're just dealing in bland generalisations with no real precision.

I'm assuming here you want to narrow down on the concepts. Otherwise, meh, just use white, black, asian etc. Then you can subclassify them again. It's really just is arbitrary.

Where do you want to draw your line today and so on.

Pighead

nesf wrote:

Well, ok, look at it this way. Ask yourself these questions.

One: Is there such a thing as races? Are they just a social construct or do they have scientific basis? Or does such not interest you?

Two: Let's say you think that races exist. Are you using the word race for different ethnic groupings or something else? i.e. Are you looking at race describing culture or physical biological differences?

Three: Decide on what criteria you wish to distinguish the races on. Skin colour, genetics, whatever.


That will help you ask the right question. Atm you're just dealing in bland generalisations with no real precision.

I'm assuming here you want to narrow down on the concepts. Otherwise, meh, just use white, black, asian etc. Then you can subclassify them again. It's really just is arbitrary.

Where do you want to draw your line today and so on.

I'm almost sure its number 2 i'm after buddy.You should be a teacher,you're good.I would have lost the rag with me ages ago

DrIndy

Races most certainly do have genetic basis and are significant in medicine. If I know someone is black or indian, then the genetic diseases they carry such as sickle cell anaemia are relevant.

Nasopharyngeal cancer is also more common in chinese people.

Race is very relevant, but should not be a social label.....

nesf

DrIndy wrote:

Races most certainly do have genetic basis and are significant in medicine. If I know someone is black or indian, then the genetic diseases they carry such as sickle cell anaemia are relevant.

Nasopharyngeal cancer is also more common in chinese people.

Race is very relevant, but should not be a social label.....

I think most of the problems with the concept of race is that people percieve it to be based on skin colour, while there is far more variation within groups of the same skin colour. And there are diseases specific to sub groups of the "commonally held races". The one that springs to mind is that cancer that only effects white Medterranean males.

Wasn't there also some heart disease drug that was found to only be effective for African American males, and no other group?

As I said above, the biological distinctions of race are very different to the commonally held views on them.

rsynnott

Pighead wrote:

Surely there must be an official race classifier in our midst

I'm sure you'll be able to find an unemployed one in South Africa.

The whole "race" thing is a little arbitrary, tbh.

KnowItAll

rsynnott wrote:

The whole "race" thing is a little arbitrary, tbh.

Thats your opinion.

Some people want to deny that there are differences between races. Go ahead but I'll bet anyone anything that in the next olympics a black man will win the 100m gold medal. Anybody like to bet against that?

Zombrex

KnowItAll wrote:

Thats your opinion.

Some people want to deny that there are differences between races. Go ahead but I'll bet anyone anything that in the next olympics a black man will win the 100m gold medal. Anybody like to bet against that?

People aren't denying there is differences between people, what they are saying is that they don't fall nicely into the classical idea of race.

For example, is a black skinned person who is small, slow and non-athletic not part of the black race because a black skinned man who is tall fast and athletic is? Surely that person would be closer to a small slow and non-athletic white person than an NBA star?

KnowItAll

Wicknight wrote:

People aren't denying there is differences between people, what they are saying is that they don't fall nicely into the classical idea of race.

For example, is a black skinned person who is small, slow and non-athletic not part of the black race because a black skinned man who is tall fast and athletic is? Surely that person would be closer to a small slow and non-athletic white person than an NBA star?

I know everybody is different.

rsynnott

KnowItAll wrote:

I know everybody is different.

*blinks*

Eek, he's said something that conforms with consensus reality. Well, that's a first.

nesf

rsynnott wrote:

*blinks*

Eek, he's said something that conforms with consensus reality. Well, that's a first.

It's not a sin to make sense.

Zombrex

KnowItAll wrote:

I know everybody is different.

So on what grounds do you group people into "race"? Skin colour?

If is a person form a small black skinned population from East Africa the same "race" as a person from a tall fast athletic black skinned population in West Africa? If so why? just because they share the same skin colour?

rsynnott

nesf wrote:

It's not a sin to make sense.

No, it's not, but if you view his earlier posts you'll notice it's not something he makes a habit of.

supersheep

I always thought that Latino and Hispanic were the same thing... As in, Spanish-descended people, like the non-indigenous inhabitants of Central and South America?
Race is such a complex issue, and it depends how far you want to subdivide everything. I mean, you can go down as far as groups of maybe a few hundred thousand to a few million individuals, or you can divide the world into larger groups like the Celts, or you can group them into huge groups, like Caucasian and Negroid. By the time you get to that level, the differences between members of the group are probably more than the similarities... S, it's pretty arbitrary if you want huge world-spanning groups...

KnowItAll

Wicknight wrote:

So on what grounds do you group people into "race"? Skin colour?

If is a person form a small black skinned population from East Africa the same "race" as a person from a tall fast athletic black skinned population in West Africa? If so why? just because they share the same skin colour?

Everybody has a different idea, it's that complex. The thing I'm saying it that there are different races and the peoples of those races are not all the same but not far off the average (the racial sterotype) of the race. When talking about race one needs to generalise.

nesf

KnowItAll wrote:

Everybody has a different idea, it's that complex. The thing I'm saying it that there are different races and the peoples of those races are not all the same but not far off the average (the racial sterotype) of the race. When talking about race one needs to generalise.

That does not mean that you can make false generalisations. Neither does it mean that what you decide to say is correct nor does it mean you can justify anything you say by the line "everybody has a different idea".

Zombrex

KnowItAll wrote:

Everybody has a different idea, it's that complex.

If everyone has a difference idea then it is safe to say the idea is nonsense.

KnowItAll wrote:

The thing I'm saying it that there are different races and the peoples of those races are not all the same but not far off the average (the racial sterotype) of the race.

Well if by "average" you mean genetic make-up, then no you are wrong. Taking the average of your genetic make up, you are as likely to have more genes in common with a South African than the white Irish person living next door to you.

If by "average" you mean things like skin colour, or hair, then these "averages" are just culturally definied, and have no basis as a proper idea.

rsynnott

KnowItAll wrote:

Everybody has a different idea, it's that complex. The thing I'm saying it that there are different races and the peoples of those races are not all the same but not far off the average (the racial sterotype) of the race. When talking about race one needs to generalise.

Really? I know a lot of non-white people I'm more similar to than I am to you. Many of them can even think logically!

KnowItAll

nesf wrote:

That does not mean that you can make false generalisations.

I don't make false generalisations.

nesf wrote:

Neither does it mean that what you decide to say is correct

Everybody have their own opinions.

nesf wrote:

nor does it mean you can justify anything you say by the line "everybody has a different idea".

I said "everybody has a different idea" to avoid argument. I have my own opinion on the issue but I know from experiance that my opinion on race is different to some people's.

KnowItAll

Wicknight wrote:

Well if by "average" you mean genetic make-up, then no you are wrong. Taking the average of your genetic make up, you are as likely to have more genes in common with a South African than the white Irish person living next door to you.
If by "average" you mean things like skin colour, or hair, then these "averages" are just culturally definied, and have no basis as a proper idea.

I don't understand what your trying to say. What do you mean by "culturally defined, and have no basis as a proper idea". Are you saying that the only differences between races are colours and hair and that there is no real difference genetically.

You could take haplogroups as another example. Ireland has one of the most homogeneous populations in the world (haplogroup 1)

Zombrex

KnowItAll wrote:

I don't understand what your trying to say. What do you mean by "culturally defined, and have no basis as a proper idea". Are you saying that the only differences between races are colours and hair and that there is no real difference genetically.

I am saying that "race" doesn't exist as a scientific idea, that the "differences" that we pick out as defining race (skin colour, hair colour, height) are defined culturally by people who want to think of people as different (ie people like yourself).

KnowItAll wrote:

You could take haplogroups as another example. Ireland has one of the most homogeneous populations in the world (haplogroup 1)

Haplogroups are genetic markers that help scientists track population groups. "Population" is an real scientic idea that has largely replaced the non-scientic idea of race. So we can see, through markers, where a persons accesters spend time, and how they breed together. But you and me (ie two white Irish people) will have some similar and some vastly different haplotypes. There is nothing stopping a black man having the same haplotype marks as you, it just means he has lived in the same are as you.