| Revision as of 10:01, 16 May 2008 view sourceKeraunos (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled31,791 edits Add link.← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:49, 25 May 2008 view source Keraunos (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled31,791 edits Add subheadings to make article easier to read.Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Totally-disputed|date=March 2008}} | {{Totally-disputed|date=March 2008}} | ||
| ⚫ | |||
| {{Main|African people}} | |||
| ⚫ | ] activists such as ] have suggested that one reason the term is regarded as offensive is because while other races are identified by the ] where it was assumed those people most typical of their ] live (the ] for those called Caucasoids and ] for those called Mongoloids), Negroids were identified by their ] (''niger'' = black). To remedy this, some have suggested substituting the term '''Congoid''' (referring to the ]) <ref> ] ''The Origin of Races'' (1962) </ref> for those people formerly termed Negroid. ] have suggested the existence of a larger ] race including other groups besides Congoids. | ||
| '''Negroid''' is an ] derived from the term ] and refers to a presumed ] of people mostly from ]. <ref name="def">{{cite web| last = O'Neil| first = Dennis| title = Modern Human Variation: Glossary of Terms| publisher = Behavioral Sciences Department, Palomar College|date=2007-07-03| url = http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/glossary.htm| accessdate = 2007-11-06 }}</ref> These people are now generally referred to as ] or '''Black Africans'''. | |||
| ==Origin of the term== | |||
| ⚫ | The term has its etymological roots in the ] word ''niger'' (]), with the earliest recorded use of the term "Negroid" in 1859.<ref>{{cite web| last = Harper| first = Douglas | title = Online Etymological Dictionary|date=November 2001| url = http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=negroid&searchmode=none| accessdate = 2007-11-06}}</ref> In modern use, the term is associated with "the division of humankind represented by the indigenous peoples of central and southern Africa",<ref name="oxford">{{cite web| title = Ask Oxford - Definition of Negroid| publisher = ]|date=2007| url = http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freesearch=negroid&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact| accessdate = 2007-11-06}}</ref> and is commonly associated with outdated notions of ] which have been widely discredited in scientific circles<ref name="def"/> — for modern usage it is generally associated with outdated racial notions, and is discouraged, as it is potentially offensive.<ref name="oxford"/> | ||
| ==Objection to use of the term== | |||
| Though the term Negroid is still used in certain disciplines such as ] and ], its usage is in decline.{{Fact|date=November 2007}} Even in a medical context, some scholars have recommended that the term Negroid should be avoided in scientific writings because of its association with ] and race science.<ref>{{cite journal| last = Agyemang| first = Charles | coauthors = Raj Bhopal, Marc Bruijnzeels| title = Negro, Black, Black African, African Caribbean, African American or what? Labelling African origin populations in the health arena in the 21st century| journal = Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health| volume = 59| pages = 1014-1018|date=2005| url = http://jech.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/59/12/1014| doi = 0.1136/jech.2005.035964| accessdate = 2007-11-06 }}</ref> This mirrors the decline in usage of the term Negro, which fell out of favor following the campaigns of the ] — the term Negro became associated with periods of legalized discrimination, and was rejected by ] during the 1960s for ].<ref name="oxford"/> | Though the term Negroid is still used in certain disciplines such as ] and ], its usage is in decline.{{Fact|date=November 2007}} Even in a medical context, some scholars have recommended that the term Negroid should be avoided in scientific writings because of its association with ] and race science.<ref>{{cite journal| last = Agyemang| first = Charles | coauthors = Raj Bhopal, Marc Bruijnzeels| title = Negro, Black, Black African, African Caribbean, African American or what? Labelling African origin populations in the health arena in the 21st century| journal = Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health| volume = 59| pages = 1014-1018|date=2005| url = http://jech.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/59/12/1014| doi = 0.1136/jech.2005.035964| accessdate = 2007-11-06 }}</ref> This mirrors the decline in usage of the term Negro, which fell out of favor following the campaigns of the ] — the term Negro became associated with periods of legalized discrimination, and was rejected by ] during the 1960s for ].<ref name="oxford"/> | ||
| == |
==Congoid used by some as substitute term== | ||
| ⚫ | ] activists such as ] have suggested that one reason the term is regarded as offensive is because while other races are identified by the ] where it was assumed those people most typical of their ] live (the ] for those called Caucasoids and ] for those called Mongoloids), Negroids were identified by their ] (''niger'' = black). To remedy this, some have suggested substituting the term '''Congoid''' (referring to the ]) <ref> ] ''The Origin of Races'' (1962) </ref> for those people formerly termed Negroid. ] have suggested the existence of a larger ] race including other groups besides Congoids. ' | ||
| Most people nowadays simply use the term '''Black African''' to avoid being labeled ]. | |||
| ==Use in physical anthropology== | |||
| {{Expand|date=November 2007}} | {{Expand|date=November 2007}} | ||
| Line 16: | Line 29: | ||
| {{cquote|The notion that five subspecies or geographic races of Homo erectus "evolved independently into Homo sapiens not once but five times" at different times and in different places, seems to me a very far-fetched one. Coon has striven valiantly, to make out a case for this theory, but it simply does not square with the biological facts. Species and subspecies simply do not develop that way. The transmutation of one species into another is a very gradual process <ref name="criticism"/>}} | {{cquote|The notion that five subspecies or geographic races of Homo erectus "evolved independently into Homo sapiens not once but five times" at different times and in different places, seems to me a very far-fetched one. Coon has striven valiantly, to make out a case for this theory, but it simply does not square with the biological facts. Species and subspecies simply do not develop that way. The transmutation of one species into another is a very gradual process <ref name="criticism"/>}} | ||
| Today, most scientists view human variation as distributed ], often without any sharp discontinuities. While acknowledging the existence of human variation among groups, ]s have abandoned the view that clearly delineated, discrete racial entities exist, since there often is considerable overlap in characteristics among 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, in at least one study most of the variation in physical traits found was among 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> |
Today, most scientists view human variation as distributed ], often without any sharp discontinuities. While acknowledging the existence of human variation among groups, ]s have abandoned the view that clearly delineated, discrete racial entities exist, since there often is considerable overlap in characteristics among 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, in at least one study most of the variation in physical traits found was among 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> | ||
| ==Use in craniofacial anthropometry== | |||
| In modern ] Negroid describes certain ] features associated with skull types of people indigenous to ]. This classification system was primarily used in the racial determination of skeletal remains in the ].{{Fact|date=January 2008}} 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 ] crania concluded: | In modern ] Negroid describes certain ] features associated with skull types of people indigenous to ]. This classification system was primarily used in the racial determination of skeletal remains in the ].{{Fact|date=January 2008}} 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 ] crania concluded: | ||
| {{cquote| 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.<ref>{{cite journal| last = L’engle Williams| first = Frank | coauthors = Robert L. Belcher, George J. Armelagos| title = Forensic Misclassification of Ancient Nubian Crania: Implications for Assumptions about Human Variation| journal = Current Anthropology| volume = 46| issue = 2| pages = 340-346|date=April 2005| url = http://monarch.gsu.edu/WebRoot$/fwilliams/CurrAnth%202005%20Williams%20et%202.pdf| accessdate = 2007-11-06 }}</ref>}} | {{cquote| The assignment of skeletal racial origin is based principally upon stereotypical features found most frequently in the most geographically distant populations. While this is useful in some contexts (for example, sorting skeletal material of largely West African ancestry from skeletal material of largely Western European ancestry), it fails to identify populations that originate elsewhere and misrepresents fundamental patterns of human biological diversity.<ref>{{cite journal| last = L’engle Williams| first = Frank | coauthors = Robert L. Belcher, George J. Armelagos| title = Forensic Misclassification of Ancient Nubian Crania: Implications for Assumptions about Human Variation| journal = Current Anthropology| volume = 46| issue = 2| pages = 340-346|date=April 2005| url = http://monarch.gsu.edu/WebRoot$/fwilliams/CurrAnth%202005%20Williams%20et%202.pdf| accessdate = 2007-11-06 }}</ref>}} | ||
| ==Views of anthropologist Vincent Sarich== | |||
| Vincent Sarich, professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of California defines race as "populations...within a species that are separated geographically from other such populations...and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features." With 73 appropriate DNA markers, according to Sarich, it is possible to state with close to 100 percent accuracy whether the ancestors of the individual who supplied them came from Europe, Africa, Asia, or the Americas. Sarich notes that the latest data suggest the migrations from Africa began only around 50,000 years ago. Then, pointing to the observed heritable differences among the resulting populations--differences not only in skin color but also in body size, cranial capacity and brain size, intelligence, physical ability, and personality--he argues that so much adaptation in so little time means that racial differences had to be enormously important for survival. The differences were not trivial, and could not have been driven by chance. | Vincent Sarich, professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of California defines race as "populations...within a species that are separated geographically from other such populations...and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features." With 73 appropriate DNA markers, according to Sarich, it is possible to state with close to 100 percent accuracy whether the ancestors of the individual who supplied them came from Europe, Africa, Asia, or the Americas. Sarich notes that the latest data suggest the migrations from Africa began only around 50,000 years ago. Then, pointing to the observed heritable differences among the resulting populations--differences not only in skin color but also in body size, cranial capacity and brain size, intelligence, physical ability, and personality--he argues that so much adaptation in so little time means that racial differences had to be enormously important for survival. The differences were not trivial, and could not have been driven by chance. | ||
Revision as of 07:49, 25 May 2008
Main article: African peopleNegroid is an adjective derived from the term Negro and refers to a presumed race of people mostly from sub-Saharan Africa. These people are now generally referred to as Africans or Black Africans.
Origin of the term
The term has its etymological roots in the Latin word niger (black), with the earliest recorded use of the term "Negroid" in 1859. 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.
Objection to use of the term
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.
Congoid used by some as substitute term
Anti-racist activists such as Elizabeth Martinez have suggested that one reason the term is regarded as offensive is because while other races are identified by the geographical places where it was assumed those people most typical of their phenotype live (the Caucasus for those called Caucasoids and Mongolia for those called Mongoloids), Negroids were identified by their color (niger = black). To remedy this, some have suggested substituting the term Congoid (referring to the Congo) for those people formerly termed Negroid. Afrocentrists have suggested the existence of a larger Africoid race including other groups besides Congoids. '
Most people nowadays simply use the term Black African to avoid being labeled politically incorrect.
Use in physical anthropology
In physical anthropology the term is one of the three general racial classifications of humans — Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid. Under this classification scheme, humans are divisible into broad sub-groups based on phenotypic characteristics such as cranial and skeletal morphology. Such classifications remain in use today in the fields of anthropology and forensics to help identify the ethnicity, lineage and origin of human remains.
Later extensions, such as Carleton S. Coon's "Origin of Races" placed this theory in an evolutionary context — Coon divided the species homo sapiens into five groups, Caucasoid, Capoid, Congoid, Australoid, and Mongoloid, based on his belief of their date of evolution from homo erectus. Labeling Congoids the "African Negroes" and "Pygmies", he divided indigenous Africans into these two distinct groups based on their date of origin, and loosened classification from mere appearance — however, this led to disagreement between approaches to dating divergence, and consequent conflicting results.
These theories were quickly criticized on the basis that such "sorting criteria" do not (in general) produce meaningful results, and that evolutionary divergence was extremely improbable over the given time-frames. As Monatagu (1963) said,
The notion that five subspecies or geographic races of Homo erectus "evolved independently into Homo sapiens not once but five times" at different times and in different places, seems to me a very far-fetched one. Coon has striven valiantly, to make out a case for this theory, but it simply does not square with the biological facts. Species and subspecies simply do not develop that way. The transmutation of one species into another is a very gradual process
Today, most scientists view human variation as distributed clinally, often without any sharp discontinuities. While acknowledging the existence of human variation among groups, anthropologists have abandoned the view that clearly delineated, discrete racial entities exist, since there often is considerable overlap in characteristics among the populations. Furthermore, in at least one study most of the variation in physical traits found was among individuals within the so-called racial groups.
Use in craniofacial anthropometry
In modern 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.
Views of anthropologist Vincent Sarich
Vincent Sarich, professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of California defines race as "populations...within a species that are separated geographically from other such populations...and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features." With 73 appropriate DNA markers, according to Sarich, it is possible to state with close to 100 percent accuracy whether the ancestors of the individual who supplied them came from Europe, Africa, Asia, or the Americas. Sarich notes that the latest data suggest the migrations from Africa began only around 50,000 years ago. Then, pointing to the observed heritable differences among the resulting populations--differences not only in skin color but also in body size, cranial capacity and brain size, intelligence, physical ability, and personality--he argues that so much adaptation in so little time means that racial differences had to be enormously important for survival. The differences were not trivial, and could not have been driven by chance.
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) - Coon, Carleton S. The Origin of Races (1962)
- Jackson Jr., John (June 2001). ""In Ways Unacademical": The Reception of Carleton S. Coon's The Origin of Races". Journal of the History of Biology. 34 (2): 247–285.
- ^ Keita, S.O.Y. (September 1987). "The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence". American Anthropologist. 99 (3): 534–544.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ Dobzhansky, Theodosius. "Two Views of Coon's "Origin of Races" with Comments by Coon and Replies". Current Anthropology. 4 (4): 360–367.
{{cite journal}}: 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)