Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Why is this article so light on sources from current scholars of anthropology and human genetics? -- ] (], ]) 03:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Why is this article so light on sources from current scholars of anthropology and human genetics? -- ] (], ]) 03:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
:Because Marxists like you make sure if someone speaks up about racial differences they get crucified and silenced.
Don't worry, we all know who and what you are.
] (]) 15:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
:It is centered on the main anthropologists from the typology's heyday, though some retrospective literature is also linked to. ] (]) 04:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
:It is centered on the main anthropologists from the typology's heyday, though some retrospective literature is also linked to. ] (]) 04:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caucasia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CaucasiaWikipedia:WikiProject CaucasiaTemplate:WikiProject CaucasiaCaucasia
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Misplaced Pages.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.
What is "Europoid"?
Europoid redirects to this article, but there is no mention of that name/word in this article. Europoid = Europid? Just another synonym for the "Caucasoid"? --Zyma (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Are these names old concepts OR still popular among scientists? For example, Do they use concepts like "Caucasoid" and "Europid" in recent researches, journals, and papers? --Zyma (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, etc. is still used in forensics I believe. Human skulls can often be recognised according to this scheme, FunkMonk (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I saw usage of Caucasian/Caucasoid in the Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza's works. I'm not sure about this: I remember he used terms like "European Caucasians" and "non-Europeans Caucasians". So Europid/Europoid = European Caucasoid or Europid = All Caucasoids types?--Zyma (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean? If he says "European Caucasoid" he means a Caucasoid from Europe. So he is applying terms that were based on morphology in the context of population genetics. The two do correlate pretty well. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Depends on the specific population, might be tribal, linguistic, geographic, historical, etc. The names chosen really only apply to the author's construction of a group or population in the context of a given work. There is no Caucasian/Caucasoid or Europid or Negroid race, but for lack any better terms, the terms are still in use. Like most geneticists on the planet, Cavalli-Sforza finds no scientific support for the concept of race, but also finds terms of convenience to be, well, convenient. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Assigning rank and names to different human populations based on either genetics or morphology is rather arbitrary (as is any classical taxonomy), but there is no denying that there are distinct clades/lineages within the human group. Whatever we call them doesn't really make much difference. These differences are clinal, but so is population variation within all other "species". FunkMonk (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Cavalli-Sforza puts it best,
By means of painstaking multivariate analysis, we can identify "clusters" of populations and order them in a hierarchy that we believe represents the history of fissions in the expansion to the whole world of anatomically modern humans. At no level can clusters be identified with races, since every level of clustering would determine a different partition and there is no biological reason to prefer a particular one. The successive levels of clustering follow each other in a regular sequence, and there is no discontinuity that might tempt us to consider a certain level as a reasonable, though arbitrary, threshold for race distinction. — Cavalli-Sforza, L. L.; Menozzi, P.; Piazza, A. (1994). The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton University Press. p. 19. ISBN9780691087504.
Fully agreed. This term as used in the United States only is scientifically proven false. Just the majority of their citizens do not know this. Caucasians are exclusively people from Russia, Armenia, Turkey, Azerbaidjan and Georgia, the latter (of course) not being the American state but an independent country.
I'm not sure what the source of the offense might be. You may be of European descent in the sense of being caucasian (i.e. having a skull that has features reliably identified as caucasian 95 percent of the time). Or you may be of European descent in the other meaning -- that is you were born in Europe. If the latter, you may still be caucasian, or you may be non-caucasian. To use a simple example -- some caucasian settlers in Africa get upset when they call themselves (their family lines) "African" and it isn't immediately accepted. Yes, their family line has lived in Africa for generations. No -- they did not magically go from caucasian to negroid (again in the forensic identification sense). This is not a political term. Even if the initial ideas about mass migrations and movements of peoples is wrong -- it still carries useful information (again -- see forensic anthropology). Saying someone is European -- in today's modern Europe -- doesn't give much of a clue about their skull type. Saying they are caucasian does give information. That's my understanding of the term -- and why it is not limited to just residents of Russia or the the nations around the Caucasus mountains -- but instead includes all of the native European peoples, North Africa, Anatolia, the Levant, and the Indian sub-continent. That is why it excludes China, the native American populations, and the sub-Saharan Africa populations -- even if persons from those areas currently live in Europe. Chesspride 66.19.84.2 (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
As the lead notes, Caucasoid generally denotes the physical or biological type of some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia, Central Asia, and South Asia. Along with particular osteological charateristics, it encompasses a suite of traits that are commonly present in populations of this type. Ashley Montague has a good summation . Soupforone (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Atlas and Rif mountains
Stoddard alludes to Berber areas in the vicinity of the Atlas and Rif mountains. He assumes that most of the surrounding populations are Arab . Soupforone (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
There are between 30 and 40 million Berbers today inhabiting areas stretching from the western Sahel to the eastern Egyptian oases. Stoddard alludes to only a few of those Berber groups living in confined, remote areas in the Atlas mountains (here the Tell Atlas and Aures) and Rif mountains opposite southern Europe . This is the small red area in his map, not northern Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, which constitutes a much greater territory . It's not the area inhabited by the Chleuh, Soussi, Tuareg, Siwans, and many other Berber groups. Stoddard considers the remaining general population of North Africa to be either essentially Arab or mixed with Arabs. This is why he asserts that "the seat of brown power in Africa is of course the great belt of territory north of the Sahara," and that "in Algeria intermarriage between Europeans and Berbers has actually begun... of course the process is merely in its first stages... still, the blood is there, the leaven is working, and in time Northwest Africa may return to the white world." Soupforone (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
"Stoddard considers the remaining general population of North Africa to be either essentially Arab or mixed with Arabs". OK, I didn't know that. Thanks for the clarification. James343e (talk) 2:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
It is centered on the main anthropologists from the typology's heyday, though some retrospective literature is also linked to. Soupforone (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
