| Revision as of 01:02, 7 November 2007 view sourceHaemo (talk | contribs)17,445 editsm fix← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:03, 7 November 2007 view source Haemo (talk | contribs)17,445 edits needs more materialNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| ==Scientific uses of the term== | ==Scientific uses of the term== | ||
| {{expand}} | |||
| *In ] the term was one of the three racial classifications of ] — '']'', '']'' and ''Negroid''. Under this classification scheme, humans were divisible into sub-groups based on ] characteristic such as ] ]. However, this position fell was criticized during the 1970s on the basis that such "sorting criteria" did not (in general) produce meaningful results.<ref>{{cite journal| last = Carlson| first = David | title = Problems in Racial Geography| journal = Annals of the Association of American Geographers| volume = 61| issue = 3| pages = 630-633| date = September 1971 | accessdate = 2007-11-06 }}</ref> Today, most scientists view human variation as distributed ], often without any sharp discontinuities. While acknowledging the existence of human variation, ]s have abandoned the view that discrete racial entities exist, since there is considerable overlap in characteristics between the populations.<ref>{{cite web| title = Race: The Power of an Illusion - Background Readings| publisher = ]/California Newsreel| date = 2003 | url = http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-08.htm| accessdate = 2007-11-06}}</ref> Furthermore most of the variation in physical traits is found between individuals within the so-called racial groups.<ref>{{cite web| title = American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race"| publisher = American Anthropological Association| date = 1998-05-17| url = http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.ht| accessdate = 2007-11-06 }}</ref> | *In ] the term was one of the three racial classifications of ] — '']'', '']'' and ''Negroid''. Under this classification scheme, humans were divisible into sub-groups based on ] characteristic such as ] ]. However, this position fell was criticized during the 1970s on the basis that such "sorting criteria" did not (in general) produce meaningful results.<ref>{{cite journal| last = Carlson| first = David | title = Problems in Racial Geography| journal = Annals of the Association of American Geographers| volume = 61| issue = 3| pages = 630-633| date = September 1971 | accessdate = 2007-11-06 }}</ref> Today, most scientists view human variation as distributed ], often without any sharp discontinuities. While acknowledging the existence of human variation, ]s have abandoned the view that discrete racial entities exist, since there is considerable overlap in characteristics between the populations.<ref>{{cite web| title = Race: The Power of an Illusion - Background Readings| publisher = ]/California Newsreel| date = 2003 | url = http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-08.htm| accessdate = 2007-11-06}}</ref> Furthermore most of the variation in physical traits is found between individuals within the so-called racial groups.<ref>{{cite web| title = American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race"| publisher = American Anthropological Association| date = 1998-05-17| url = http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.ht| accessdate = 2007-11-06 }}</ref> | ||
| Line 22: | Line 23: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| {{stub}} | |||
Revision as of 01:03, 7 November 2007
Template:Totallydisputed Negroid is an adjective derived from the term Negro and refers to a presumed race of people mostly from sub-Saharan Africa. The term has its etymological roots in the Latin word niger (black), with the first recorded use occurring in 1859, with the meaning "Negro-like". In modern use, the term is associated with "the division of humankind represented by the indigenous peoples of central and southern Africa", and is commonly associated with outdated notions of racial typology which have been widely discredited in scientific circles — for modern usage it is generally associated with outdated racial notions, and is discouraged, as it is potentially offensive.
Though the term Negroid is still used in certain disciplines such as craniometry and epidemiology, its usage is in decline. Even in a medical context, some scholars have recommended that the term Negroid should be avoided in scientific writings because of its association with racism and race science. This mirrors the decline in usage of the term Negro, which fell out of favor following the campaigns of the American civil rights movement — the term Negro became associated with periods of legalized discrimination, and was rejected by African Americans during the 1960s for Black.
Scientific uses of the term
- In physical anthropology the term was one of the three racial classifications of humans — Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid. Under this classification scheme, humans were divisible into sub-groups based on phenotypic characteristic such as skeletal morphology. However, this position fell was criticized during the 1970s on the basis that such "sorting criteria" did not (in general) produce meaningful results. Today, most scientists view human variation as distributed clinally, often without any sharp discontinuities. While acknowledging the existence of human variation, anthropologists have abandoned the view that discrete racial entities exist, since there is considerable overlap in characteristics between the populations. Furthermore most of the variation in physical traits is found between individuals within the so-called racial groups.
- In craniofacial anthropometry Negroid describes certain stereotypical features associated with skull types of people indigenous to sub-Saharan Africa. This classification system was primarily used in the racial determination of skeletal remains in the United States. However, even this system of classification has been criticized for only working in the situations such as the United States, where the populations are derived from geographically distant locations. For example, a recent study of ancient Nubian crania concluded:
The assignment of skeletal racial origin is based principally upon stereotypical features found most frequently in the most geographically distant populations. While this is useful in some contexts (for example, sorting skeletal material of largely West African ancestry from skeletal material of largely Western European ancestry), it fails to identify populations that originate elsewhere and misrepresents fundamental patterns of human biological diversity.
See also
References
- ^ O'Neil, Dennis (2007-07-03). "Modern Human Variation: Glossary of Terms". Behavioral Sciences Department, Palomar College. Retrieved 2007-11-06.
- Harper, Douglas (November 2001). "Online Etymological Dictionary". Retrieved 2007-11-06.
- ^ "Ask Oxford - Definition of Negroid". Oxford Dictionary of English. 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-06.
- Agyemang, Charles (2005). "Negro, Black, Black African, African Caribbean, African American or what? Labelling African origin populations in the health arena in the 21st century". Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 59: 1014–1018. doi:0.1136/jech.2005.035964. Retrieved 2007-11-06.
{{cite journal}}: Check|doi=value (help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - Carlson, David (September 1971). "Problems in Racial Geography". Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 61 (3): 630–633.
{{cite journal}}:|access-date=requires|url=(help) - "Race: The Power of an Illusion - Background Readings". PBS/California Newsreel. 2003. Retrieved 2007-11-06.
- "American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race"". American Anthropological Association. 1998-05-17. Retrieved 2007-11-06.
- L’engle Williams, Frank (April 2005). "Forensic Misclassification of Ancient Nubian Crania: Implications for Assumptions about Human Variation" (PDF). Current Anthropology. 46 (2): 340–346. Retrieved 2007-11-06.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help)
This article is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |