Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Do you believe that there is such thing as "racial purity" in humans?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Do you believe that there is such thing as "racial purity" in humans?

    While it is most likely that many people have some degree of racial mixture, the vast majority of them don't acknowledge or identify with them culturally. Anthropologically, there are only 3 human races such as Caucasoid, M0ng0l0id and N3gr0id (I apologize if the last two race terms came off as racist but I didn't come up with these terms, anthropologists of the 18-19th century did).

    The funny thing is, people often always tend to think a group of people in the same Caucasian/Caucasoid race equals all of them having the same skin colors when human races are differentiated mostly by skull shape, facial structures and phenotype in general, not skin color, hence why Middle Eastern people, Jews (which shouldn't even be considered a separate race of it's own from DNA testings since it is nothing more than an ethno-religion) and some South and Central Asian people fall under being racially Caucasoid, despite having more tan or darker skin than your stereotypical Caucasian person.

    Fast forward that to today with Latin America and you'll see that the slight or good majority of people from Latin America are a good mixture of all 3 human races (especially between Caucasoid and M0ng0l0id, with Spanish Conquistadors and American Indians). Sadly today, there's also a lot of ignorance and stupidity in around the world where some people of the Caucasoid race believe that Arabs and Jews are a different race from them when one, Jews again are NOT a race of their own and two, both (Arabs and Jews) still fall under being of the Caucasoid race. Then again, humanity is full of egotistical idiots who will desperately try so hard to find reasons to divide from certain groups of people by whatever preposterous reasons and then twist scientific facts up for their own race agenda.

    Just my 2 cents.
    Last edited by JLG1995; 05-11-2017, 02:39 PM.

  • #2
    It seems that there is too little genetic difference between humans of different skin colour to really speak of "race" in the first place...
    La tête en bas et les pieds en l'air ! Oh lÃ* lÃ* !

    Comment


    • #3
      I dont think the problem lies in races, but more in location and culture(evolution)

      Best thing would be to mix everything up and try to think like a planet............................lol




      Mzzls

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by LadyJosh View Post
        It seems that there is too little genetic difference between humans of different skin colour to really speak of "race" in the first place...
        As an animal spieces we have really similar genome because of a genetic bottleneck after the Toba erruption 70 000 years ago, but human races are still different enough one from another that we can talk about races. Human races are different in apperence (that's quite obvious), physical fitness (just look at the Olympics where concrete disciplines are dominated with one particular race) and inteligence (the difference between the Aborigene people and Eastern Asians is quite big). Even within particular races there are differences, just look at somebody from Ireland and India which both belong to the white race. It's very difficult to talk about racial purity because human history is full of migration and wars, so all that differences within particular races come gradually. Only very isolated communities are racially pure.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Kornik92 View Post
          Even within particular races there are differences, just look at somebody from Ireland and India which both belong to the white race.
          Indians aren't White (and for that matter, whether the Irish are White or not is controversial).

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
            Indians aren't White (and for that matter, whether the Irish are White or not is controversial).
            If we assume that there are only four races plus (white, yellow, African and Australian black) combinations of them, Indians will be categorised within the white race. That's categorisation comes from facial features, not from colour of complexion. Perhaps I am wrong, but it's that I was taught in geography class.
            Last edited by Kornik92; 05-14-2017, 06:05 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Who cares about 'racial purity?' Hitler was enough, all we should care about is a person's behaviour, not origin and looks.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
                Indians aren't White (and for that matter, whether the Irish are White or not is controversial).
                Oh lolz, the anglo categorizations of race had always been as quaint as they were retarded
                Why is it called a tourist season if we're not supposed to hunt them?

                Comment


                • #9

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Kornik92 View Post
                    That's categorisation comes from facial features, not from colour of complexion.
                    Since a colour-based nomenclature refers to specific features, it doesn't make sense to use it when the labels don't match the features.

                    I think the better set of terms is: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid. The "Negroid" naming is not open to the same criticism because of the suffix.

                    In any event, Indians and Irishmen are indeed of Caucasoid race.

                    Originally posted by grgur View Post
                    Oh lolz, the anglo categorizations of race had always been as quaint as they were retarded
                    I can't remember whether Slavs are White or not. Maybe the Latin ones are while the Greek and Mohammedan ones aren't. Then again, the Poles were Latins, but not White. I think this confusion is really the fault of the Americans (who, it should be said, are not White, let alone Anglo-Saxon).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by JLG1995 View Post
                      Anthropologically, there are only 3 human races such as Caucasoid, M0ng0l0id and N3gr0id (I apologize if the last two race terms came off as racist but I didn't come up with these terms, anthropologists of the 18-19th century did).
                      AHAHAHAHAH, MDRLOLXPTDR, TROLOL. XD

                      Nope.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by LadyJosh View Post
                        It seems that there is too little genetic difference between humans of different skin colour to really speak of "race" in the first place...
                        We can talk about populations, but not sub-species, yes, especialyl since there are more difference between 2 person from the same population than between two people from differents populations.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Etsia View Post
                          Who cares about 'racial purity?' Hitler was enough, all we should care about is a person's behaviour, not origin and looks.
                          Here, in Brittany, a Man wrote a book about how being a Breton, a part of his text is the following:
                          "Is Breton my mother tongue ? No : I am born in Nantes where it is not spoken... Am I even Breton ? Really I believe yes. But of "pure blood", I do not know and which importance ? ... Separatist ? Autonomist ? Regionalist ? Yes and no : different . But so you do not understand anymore. What do we call to be Breton ? And first , why to be a Breton ? ... French of civil state , I am named French , I assume at every moment my situation of French : my belonging to the Brittany is only a facultative quality that I can perfectly deny or ignore . I in fact did it. I have during a long-time ignored that I was Breton... French without problem , I must live Brittany moreover , or , to better say, consciously : if I lose this conscious , Brittany stops to be in me; if all the Bretons lose her , she absolutely ceases to exist. Brittany has no papers. She exists only insofar as at each generation men recognise themselves as Bretons. At this hour , children are born in Brittany. Will they be Bretons ? Nobody knows. To each, when age comes, the discovery or the ignorance. ..."

                          Your little sentence make me strongly think about it, since it's how I see my Breton "soul".

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Patterns in genetic differences are a real thing, so those types are expressing something real, but the part about distinct races doesn't seem to work out well. Breaking all of humanity into a set, limited number is definitely meaningless.

                            It's interesting how some of the same plays out with cultures. Patterns in behaviors by countries or regions are a real thing, shared habits, preferences, other social shared perspective, etc., but pinning it all down doesn't really work.

                            People are inclined to define which group they're in, which relates to defining other groups they're not in. Boundary condition issues are just one problematic part of that. Of course part of the context is that saying "we're all the same" isn't exactly right either. And it's way too much to ask for everyone to step back and embrace a balanced perspective about all of it.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              White race is the superior. My proof? History.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X