| Revision as of 07:36, 1 August 2007 view sourceDark Tea (talk | contribs)3,238 edits removed off-topic Caucasoid skull traits and long discussion about forensic anthropology not specifically related to Negroids per WP:TOPIC stay on article's topic← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:41, 1 August 2007 view source Dark Tea (talk | contribs)3,238 edits no indefinite articles such as "a" to be used in article headers per WP:HEADNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| *The ] defines negroid as an "adjective relating to the division of humankind represented by the indigenous peoples of central and southern Africa...The term Negroid is associated with outdated notions of racial types; it is potentially offensive and best avoided."<ref>http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/negroid?view=uk</ref> | *The ] defines negroid as an "adjective relating to the division of humankind represented by the indigenous peoples of central and southern Africa...The term Negroid is associated with outdated notions of racial types; it is potentially offensive and best avoided."<ref>http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/negroid?view=uk</ref> | ||
| == |
==Craniofacial category== | ||
| Forensic anthropologists look for "Negroid" traits are generalized to include more rounded eye sockets; broader, more rounded nasal cavity; a forward-slanting facial profile (]); and a ] skull (proportionally longer from front to back). | Forensic anthropologists look for "Negroid" traits are generalized to include more rounded eye sockets; broader, more rounded nasal cavity; a forward-slanting facial profile (]); and a ] skull (proportionally longer from front to back). | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| While this method produces useful results for the population of the United States, it is likely that it would not be reliable for populations from other countries.<ref></ref> This is due to the fact that the United States has traditionally had groups whose ancestry came from geographically distant locations, and which have generally remained ] in this country, for social reasons. As more immigrants from in between regions and as Americans become more racially mixed, such craniofacial identification is problematic. | While this method produces useful results for the population of the United States, it is likely that it would not be reliable for populations from other countries.<ref></ref> This is due to the fact that the United States has traditionally had groups whose ancestry came from geographically distant locations, and which have generally remained ] in this country, for social reasons. As more immigrants from in between regions and as Americans become more racially mixed, such craniofacial identification is problematic. | ||
| Classification by craniofacial anthropometry does not necessarily coincide with genetic ancestry or social self-identification. For example, about one-third of so-called "White" Americans have detectable African DNA markers.<ref>Heather E. Collins-Schramm and others, "Markers that Discriminate Between European and African Ancestry Show Limited Variation Within Africa", ''Human Genetics'' 111 (2002): 566-9; Mark D. Shriver and others, "Skin Pigmentation, Biogeographical Ancestry, and Admixture Mapping", ''Human Genetics'' 112 (2003): 387-99.</ref> And about five percent of so-called "Black" Americans have no detectable "Negroid" traits at all, neither craniofacial nor in their DNA.<ref>E.J. Parra and others, "Ancestral Proportions and Admixture Dynamics in Geographically Defined African Americans Living in South Carolina", ''American Journal of Physical Anthropology'' 114 (2001): 18-29, Figure 1.</ref> In short, given three Americans, one who self-identifies and is socially accepted as U.S. White, another one who self-identifies and is socially accepted as U.S. Black, and one who self-identifies and is socially accepted as U.S. Hispanic, and given that they have precisely the same Afro-European mix of ancestries (one "mulatto" grandparent), there is quite literally no objective test that will identify their U.S. endogamous group membership without an interview.<ref>Carol Channing, ''Just Lucky I Guess: A Memoir of Sorts'' (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002); Gregory Howard Williams, ''Life on the Color Line: The True Story of a White Boy who Discovered he was Black'' (New York: Dutton, 1995)</ref> |
Classification by craniofacial anthropometry does not necessarily coincide with genetic ancestry or social self-identification. For example, about one-third of so-called "White" Americans have detectable African DNA markers.<ref>Heather E. Collins-Schramm and others, "Markers that Discriminate Between European and African Ancestry Show Limited Variation Within Africa", ''Human Genetics'' 111 (2002): 566-9; Mark D. Shriver and others, "Skin Pigmentation, Biogeographical Ancestry, and Admixture Mapping", ''Human Genetics'' 112 (2003): 387-99.</ref> And about five percent of so-called "Black" Americans have no detectable "Negroid" traits at all, neither craniofacial nor in their DNA.<ref>E.J. Parra and others, "Ancestral Proportions and Admixture Dynamics in Geographically Defined African Americans Living in South Carolina", ''American Journal of Physical Anthropology'' 114 (2001): 18-29, Figure 1.</ref> In short, given three Americans, one who self-identifies and is socially accepted as U.S. White, another one who self-identifies and is socially accepted as U.S. Black, and one who self-identifies and is socially accepted as U.S. Hispanic, and given that they have precisely the same Afro-European mix of ancestries (one "mulatto" grandparent), there is quite literally no objective test that will identify their U.S. endogamous group membership without an interview.<ref>Carol Channing, ''Just Lucky I Guess: A Memoir of Sorts'' (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002); Gregory Howard Williams, ''Life on the Color Line: The True Story of a White Boy who Discovered he was Black'' (New York: Dutton, 1995)</ref> | ||
| ==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 07:41, 1 August 2007
Negroid is a largely-archaic term used to describe one of the groups of craniofacial anthropometry, a view now mostly regarded as an over-simplification of the spectrum of diversity found in Africa. The concept's existence is based on the now disputed typological method of racial classification. Sub-Saharan Africans are the most genetically diverse of the historically defined races. For example the world's tallest ethnic group are the Dinka from Sudan and the world's shortest ethnic group are the (African pygmies).
This diversity is reflected in a wide range of skull dimensions. Sub-Saharan Africans have been described as, "the most heterogeneous population characterized by the greatest variation in the largest number of cranial dimensions". A recent study by the University of Cambridge that involved 6,000 skulls from across the world found that variation in skull dimensions was highest in South East-Africa and gradually decreased with distance from Africa. Therefore the notion that one skull type can be used to describe a diverse range of cranial dimensions is viewed as an oversimplification.
Definitions
- The Oxford English Dictionary defines negroid as an "adjective relating to the division of humankind represented by the indigenous peoples of central and southern Africa...The term Negroid is associated with outdated notions of racial types; it is potentially offensive and best avoided."
Craniofacial category
Forensic anthropologists look for "Negroid" traits are generalized to include more rounded eye sockets; broader, more rounded nasal cavity; a forward-slanting facial profile (prognathism); and a dolichocephalic skull (proportionally longer from front to back).
Challenges
Although it is categorization of a skull is clear given arbitrary parameters, it will not locate the owners geographic ancestry concretely all the time. While one's perception of an individual's race can be affected by cultural aspects, the "race" of his skull is less ambiguous. As Dr. Stan Rhine put it, "...it is clear that race does mean different things to different people. In the context of forensic anthropology, the term race is unambiguous." Although their craniofacial race based on skull indeces is unambiguous, it will not pin point their geographic origins accurately all the time due to variation in skulls within a geographic region. While this method produces useful results for the population of the United States, it is likely that it would not be reliable for populations from other countries. This is due to the fact that the United States has traditionally had groups whose ancestry came from geographically distant locations, and which have generally remained endogamous in this country, for social reasons. As more immigrants from in between regions and as Americans become more racially mixed, such craniofacial identification is problematic.
Classification by craniofacial anthropometry does not necessarily coincide with genetic ancestry or social self-identification. For example, about one-third of so-called "White" Americans have detectable African DNA markers. And about five percent of so-called "Black" Americans have no detectable "Negroid" traits at all, neither craniofacial nor in their DNA. In short, given three Americans, one who self-identifies and is socially accepted as U.S. White, another one who self-identifies and is socially accepted as U.S. Black, and one who self-identifies and is socially accepted as U.S. Hispanic, and given that they have precisely the same Afro-European mix of ancestries (one "mulatto" grandparent), there is quite literally no objective test that will identify their U.S. endogamous group membership without an interview.
References
- O'Neil, Dennis. "Biological Anthropology Terms." 2006. May 13, 2007. Palomar College.
- Does Race Exist? A proponent's perspective by George W. Gill.
- New Research Proves Single Origin Of Humans In Africa
- The evolution of modern human diversityISBN 0521473934
- http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/negroid?view=uk
- http://medstat.med.utah.edu/kw/osteo/forensics/race.html.
- The Online Companion to California Newsreel's 3 part documentary about race and society, science and history, "Race — The Power of an Illusion", Ask the Experts section
- Heather E. Collins-Schramm and others, "Markers that Discriminate Between European and African Ancestry Show Limited Variation Within Africa", Human Genetics 111 (2002): 566-9; Mark D. Shriver and others, "Skin Pigmentation, Biogeographical Ancestry, and Admixture Mapping", Human Genetics 112 (2003): 387-99.
- E.J. Parra and others, "Ancestral Proportions and Admixture Dynamics in Geographically Defined African Americans Living in South Carolina", American Journal of Physical Anthropology 114 (2001): 18-29, Figure 1.
- Carol Channing, Just Lucky I Guess: A Memoir of Sorts (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002); Gregory Howard Williams, Life on the Color Line: The True Story of a White Boy who Discovered he was Black (New York: Dutton, 1995)