Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:43, 11 December 2006

this is for discussion, not the article

THIS ARTICLE IS GROSSLY AMERICAN-CENTRIC!!! I am an english cultured, of what I would describe as "native european" ancestry. The later part of the article on the terms caucasoid, negroid and mongoloid is patently stupid from a world point of view. The article goes on and on about AMERICANS with one negroid and one native american ancestor at the great granparent level being able to belong to any of the 3 groups defined by this terminology. Who cares? in the world as a whole there is a need for these (or similar) terms. Why?

1/ Africa - this huge continent is divided by the Sahara desert, and to the north of the desert the people have far more in common with "europeans" in physical type than have with the people to the south of the desert. Therefore we need a term to describe the type of the sub-saharan population which is not the same as the continent, else we would be ill informed of the type of people living in the north of that continent.

2/Asia, the same - several physical types found here, you americans call the mongoloids "Asian", but the british call South Asians "Asian" (and indeed that is the commonest self-identifier amongst the population within the U.K. that originates from the sub-continent) There are also other groups eg arabs and persians in western asia, russians in siberia etc who are certainly more similar to "europeans" than they are to what you call Asians

3/Europe, the term european tends to denote a person born, resident and with a european culture. many people thus identify as "black europeans" or "black british" for example, to exclude them from the term european might be contentious to say the least.

The terms mongoloid, negroid and caucasoid are hardly perfect, as one refers to a single tribe in central asia, another to a colour and the last to a range of mountains where we probably did not originate! but they do at least SEPARATE physical type from the geographical continents which do not correspond at all to the boundaries, however blurred, between the types.

As to the use of the terms White and Black, well I leave it to "Blacks" if they wish to define themselves by a colour, but i PERSONALLY find it VERY OFFENSIVE AND INSULTING to have my complex heritage reduced to a colour. To emphasize that i consider it racial harassment to be called "white". I am a native european. Plus it's ridiculous. Put the hand of a white person against apiece of paper, they are not white any more than they are black or silver.

Thankyou for reading this, i hope you can understand.

Commentary:

There are always a few that will get upset and offended about everything. I don't get offended when someone calls me "Indian" or "Engin" or anything else that is deemed as offensive to Native Americans. People have a right to say whatever they wish, let them. You should try not being offended by anything, it's a good way to live your life. Keeps your blood pressure low. And it keeps you from making a complete ass of yourself out of anger as you just did.

Apologetics Press is not a reliable source

Why is this constantly readded to the article? Its a religious cite, not a scientific one. Do we need an RfC? -Psychohistorian 13:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is full of fraud

I am not native english speaker so i am unable to correct the errors of the article myself. Article tries falsely to give the image that antropological types (negroid, euripid and mongloloid) have been proven not exist be modern research. To be strict no one has proven those types false. Negroids, caucasoids and mongoloids still exists as they have been existing for millenias. They are not races (while race means subspecies), but they are antropological types. So even the name of the article is misleading. Articles about negroid, mongoloid and euripid were about the type

While some criticize today the existence of races, no credible scientist criticizes the existence of antropological types, whose existence is clear to everyone. Someone tries to prove that mongoloid is not a race, but no one can or even tries to prove that the antropological type mongoloid does not exist!

This article seems to be hijacked to support one political viewpoint while totally discriminating the other views. This article needs more attention from the wikipedia community so it could not be used as political tool of few. It was a lot better when there were articles for each antropological type, like mongoloid, europid and negroid. Those articles must be returned.

In the four years in which I studied anthropology in college, not once did I hear or read of any anthropologist using the term "anthropoligical type". Where does that fit in exactly? Maybe it goes by a different name in the US. Is it biological? How does it compare/contrast with "race"? Regardless, this article is about race and genetic research has proven that race doesn't exist in humans. -Psychohistorian 17:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As someone with a degree in genetics (yes genetics, not anthropology) I can tell you that not only does the concept of race exist, but it's more meaningful than you could ever imagine. Gottoupload 23:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you can provide a cite to a source which meets Misplaced Pages standards (say, a mainstream Journal of Medicine or mainstream Journal of Anthropology article in your country which is available over the internet or via public libraries) which supports the existence of anthropological types (again, whatever that is), it would be a valuable contribution to the article.-Psychohistorian 18:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Who decides what journals are mainstream? Any journal that does publish the volumes of genetic research showing the existence of race is immediately branded racist and thus not mainstream by semi-creationists types who don't believe that the theory of evolution can apply to humans. Gottoupload 23:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"Who decides what journals are mainstream?" I'd start with, if you are in the United States, one associated with one of the major genetics professional organizations listed on the NIEHS website (which includes peer-reviewed journals associated with one of the following; the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Medical Association, National Academy of Sciences, New York Academy of Sciences, The Institute for Genomic Research, Genetics Society of America, Association of Genetic Technologists, or the American Society of Human Genetics. I would also include any peer reviewed journals from the American Board of Medical Genetics, the American College of Medical Genetics, the American Society of Gene Therapy, and the American Society of Human Genetics. That's for genetics. I would have thought that someone with at least a four year degree in genetics would already know which journals are mainstream.

So whatever journals you like are mainstream?__Whatdoyou 17:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I haven't even read these journals, so I don't know if I like them. What they do have in common is that they are associated with professional organizations listed by the NIEHS.-Psychohistorian 17:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Who changed the title to craniofacial anthropology?

Negroid, caucasoid, and mongoloid are based on all kinds of characteristics, not just the shape of the skull and face. In fact the term Negroid was meant to refer to the black skin of sub-Saharan Africans. And now the terms are commonly used in genetic research and are being validated by more and more studies all the time. So making the title so narrow is misleading and shows a poor understanding of where these terms actually originated. I think someone's just trying to discredit the concept of race as based on nothing more than skulls. Gottoupload 23:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the redirect because it was done incorrectly. It didn't actually redirect it just sort of went to a dead link which had no content.

I *think* the majority of people here have no problem with changing the title to "Races of Man" (though calling it "Races of Anthropology" is a mistake as mainstream Anthropology has proven that race doesn't exist). But if that is done, it needs to be done correctly (mechanically speaking).-Psychohistorian 18:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream anthropologists have not proven that race does not exist. Races very obviously exist, it's just not politically correct to say so. Besides what do anthropologists know about genetics? Timelist 00:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, according to the AAA, mainstream anthropology has proven that race does not have a biological basis - this remains true despite your unsourced claims to the contrary. -Psychohistorian 11:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

But the AAA is not a credible authority when it comes to genetics. They are experts on skulls, and cultures, but not genetics. Timelist 14:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"Races very obviously exist, it's just not politically correct to say so." Whatever your personal politics are isn't relevant. What is relevant is what is verifiable. What is verifiable is that mainstream anthropology has stated very clearly that race categories are arbitrary, subjective, without biological basis. Any article called "races of anthropology" must focus on how the concept of 'race' has developed and is used -within anthropology- and since mainstream anthropology states that there is no biological basis for race, the majority of the article will discuss that fact. If you want to create an article called "race as used in the science of genetics", then it can focus on how the race concept has developed and is being used within the science of genetics (again, dealing primarily with what mainstream genetics says on the issue). The option I presented is the title "Races of Man" and such a title will expand the scope to include the science of genetics, anthropology, the history of racism, etc. The AAA is the largest professional organization of anthropologists in the US and covers all areas of anthropology from culture to linguistics to forensics, human biological diversity, ethnomedicine, and paleoanthropology. They have members who are recognized around the world and have forgotten more about genetics and race than you are likely to ever know. Saying that the AAA is not a credible authority on genetics is like saying that the American Medical Association is not a credible authority on genetics. -Psychohistorian 16:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No trust me, the AAA is not taken seriously by people who know anything about genetics. They should stick to measuring skulls and leave the genetics to the smart people. But I agree with you that the title should be changed since anthropology is no longer taken seriously in the 21st century. Timelist 16:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Trust you?? Why? Is it because you can't provide a verifiable reliable source that backs you up? There's no need for trust on Misplaced Pages. It isn't required and it isn't desired. Verifiability from reliable sources is the name of the game here and you've got none.-Psychohistorian 17:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Where on Earth did you get the ridiculous idea that I have no sources? You need to take your head out of the anthropology text book and explore some modern disciplines. There's a whole world out there. Timelist 18:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"Where on Earth did you get the ridiculous idea that I have no sources?" From the fact that you've demonstrated an inability to cite any. -Psychohistorian 18:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There are sources already in the article! Read it! Timelist 20:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Redundant Article

There is another article on this same topic called Craniofacial Anthropometry originally written by Frank W. Sweet. I think it was a good article. It was strictly about craniofacial anthropology. This article currently gets side-tracked into genetics and physical type comparisons. I think the genetics and the physical type discussion with reference to Blumenbach should not be in the article.--Dark Tichondrias 05:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You're the one who kept changing the title to craniofacial anthropology even though there already is an article on this topic. You also seem to think that terms like negroid, caucasoid, and mongoloid can ONLY be used in a craniofacial context, when in fact those classifications are and always have been broader in scope. So if you just want this article to be about how race is applied in craniofacial anthropolgy, then as you say, such an article already exists. Timelist 20:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro

This article needs a clear, concise first sentence that includes the title of the article in bold. As of now the intro is very convoluted. I'd help instead of complaining but I know nothing of the subject. -Emiellaiendiay 03:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Negroids?

Why is there a Caucasoid race article, a Mongoloid race article, but no real Negroid article? This is a major oversight and a minor outrage. Was this a conscious decision, or is simply because no one has gotten around to writing such an article?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 12:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Why, after discovering that, did you not set about creating such an article instead of complaining about it? The fact that people would rather bitch than do work is the real major oversight and minor outrage.-Psychohistorian 15:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)