The April 2018 issue of National Geographic is all about race. The issue marks 50 years since Martin Luther King Jr’s death. There will be other articles about race throughout the rest of the year.
The editor’s note for the April issue is entitled:
“For Decades, Our Coverage Was Racist. To Rise Above Our Past, We Must Acknowledge It.”
It gave some examples, apologized, and promised to do better.
It all sounds good, but its latest example of racism is from 1962.
White lens: The editor is White. Most of the photographers are White. Even the photographer who took the cover picture for the race issue is White. And the cover seems to use the White We:
“These twin sisters make us rethink everything we know about race.”
Huh? One of the sisters could pass for White, but that stuff has been going on for hundreds of years. Who is this “we”?
National Geographic has been the White American lens made flesh (paper, pixels) since its founding in 1888, and remains so to this day 130 years later.
Enter John Edwin Mason: National Geographic did hire an outside expert, John Edwin Mason, to go through its archives to see what racism could be found. Mason is a historian of both Africa and photography at the University of Virginia. He did a similar study for Life magazine.
But they did not let Mason write an article of his own. Some of his findings are given in the editor’s note, but you have to go to like NPR or YouTube to find out much.
Mason told NPR:
“The photography, like the articles, didn’t simply emphasize difference, but made difference … very exotic, very strange, and put difference into a hierarchy. And that hierarchy was very clear: that the West, and especially the English-speaking world, was at the top of the hierarchy. And black and brown people were somewhere underneath.”
That is almost the definition of racism. And they are still doing it.
Black Americans: National Geographic sends its photographers to the ends of the earth but did not think to do an article on Black Americans till the late 1960s. Before then, says Mason, they appear in pictures only as maids and porters and so on, almost by accident. National Geographic would not even let Black Americans receive the magazine till 1940.
“Of the times”: Mason says National Geographic was of the times, yet in 1919 one reader wrote:
“In volume XXXV […] you use the words ‘Southern Darky,’. These are the words of the lower stratum of the white South. The word ‘Darky’ is very offensive to the refined and educated colored man. We expect better language from a first class magazine.”
And even the Whitetastic New Yorker in 1944 could tell its bare brown breast policy was racist:
But at long last National Geographic seems to understand that it is too White for its own good:
“We cover a diverse world. If we want to do so accurately and with authority, we need a diverse staff to cover it.”
– Abagond, 2018.
Sources: mainly NPR, Mic, New York Times.
See also:
- White lens
- voice of colour
- National Geographic
- “of the times”
540
[…] https://abagond.wordpress.com/2018/03/28/national-geographics-racism/ […]
LikeLike
No example of racism in the 56 years?
I need to look closely at this issue.
A good follow up issue to this one would be “The White Lens”.
LikeLike
“For Decades, Our Coverage Was Racist. To Rise Above Our Past, We Must Acknowledge It.” – National Geographic
“We cover a diverse world. If we want to do so accurately and with authority, we need a diverse staff to cover it.” – National Geographic
National Geographic could’ve easily followed through on their promises by allowing John Edwin Mason to not only “cover” a story, but to write his findings in his own words as well. Oh well, I guess it is true, that promises are made, only to be broken.
LikeLike
This post brought back a memory from many years ago. I once met at a social gathering an African American woman who was a former employee of National Geographic. I believe she worked there during the 1980s.
My initial reaction was “Wow, what a fantastic job!” I don’t remember her exact words, but it was kind of the verbal equivalent of a shrug, like working there wasn’t so great but she wasn’t sure whether she wanted to say more. I’d already had a similar experience on a local scale of having worked at a place that people assumed would be a dream job when it actually was one of the two worst workplaces I’ve ever been in, and I knew how difficult those conversations could be. So I just said something like “oh, that’s too bad, I’m sorry” and changed the subject.
If I had gotten to know her, I might have eventually found out the story, but I never met her again. I wonder now how much office racism she encountered there. Considering that some men used to jokingly refer to National Geographic as “soft porn you can read in your dentist’s office,” it might not have been the most hospitable environment for female employees to begin with, and how much more so for a black woman.
It would be very interesting to hear from former and current employees of color about their experiences working for National Geographic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Abagond
“National Geographic would not even let Black Americans receive the magazine till 1940.”
How exactly did they manage that? Did the subscription form have a box to check off for race?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would like to read about these twins they are fascinating.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Whiteness and “Caucasity” are a heck of a drug. Caucasity is a term from podcasters Bodega Boys. Caucasity is audacity of white privilege.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ Mary Burrell
That is an interesting word. Thanks for sharing.
LikeLike
It’s not really a ‘new’ or ‘rethink’ thing. This has probably been happening since the early colonial period and been the back of many more intelligent people that look at people, concerning race and ethnicity, and examine more than just simple skin color or basic facial dynamics. Most famous cases are the ‘black’ labelled South African lady that went through a tragic life because his parents never knew they had ‘native’ African ancestry. There are people at my work place at this very moment, both black and white, that look related despite a different shade of skin tone. Why is this even news for Nat Geo? It’s a pretty old thing.
LikeLike
[…] via National Geographic’s racism […]
LikeLike
“Even the photographer who took the cover picture for the race issue is White. And the cover seems to use the White We:
Huh? One of the sisters could pass for White, but that stuff has been going on for hundreds of years. Who is this “we”?”
I hope the National Geographic means “We, the editors of this magazine.”
However, I think the National Geographic tries the “If everyone is making tht mistake, then you cannot blame us for it”-defense. Thus I believe the “We” here is intended as “We, Mankind.”
And that is stupid. After all, all the NatGeo had to do was watching NBC DateLine in 2005 to see some not-that-identical twins:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9438648/ns/dateline_nbc/t/worlds-least-alike-twins/#.WsOAFDhlLAU
LikeLike
@ Jeff Elberfeld
There is also a set of biracial/multiracial twins in the UK with similar differences:
Since their mother is biracial herself, there seems to be less drama about their respective skin colors.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oops forgot to link to their story:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/biracial-twins-lucy-maria-aylmer_n_6787294.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Afrofem: Thanks! 🙂
LikeLike
@Afrofem
That’s a very good example. It’s like they took the same person and adjusted the melanin in on vs the other.
LikeLike
So black Americans couldn’t receive National Geographic until 1940 but they still photographed and exploited nude bodies of black people and other indigenous people this is very disgusting.
LikeLike
with all respect abagond, no black person passes for white,those are white people with black ancestry.the one drop rule is dying, let it die.
LikeLike
That entirely depends on the definitions of “Black” and “White” being applied in a specific situation doesn’t it? I completely agree that the very notion of “passing” is garbage because it requires you to accept that race is real and that it can be defined in such a way that a person belonging to one race could masquerade as another. Since race is not real and is instead in the eye of the beholder, it has always been defined by the oppressors… often on-the-fly and never founded in reality. So, the idea of “passing” is more about tricking the oppressors into not oppressing you based on their irrational construct of race and not at all about actually being one thing or another.
The one drop rule may be dying, but I think you’ll agree that race was never about some kind of blood test founded in science. If it was, they must have had better genetics testing capabilities than we have now. In fact, The Supreme Court completely ignored science-like definitions of race in 1923 when they ruled on United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind. In summary, the court ruled that you’re only White if Whites think you’re White and your ancestry, social class and/or science have nothing to do with it. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/261/204
Almost a century later we have science to back up their opinion that “it would be obviously illogical to convert words of common speech used in a statute into words of scientific terminology”. They knew then that they’d made up race for the sake of justifying oppression. Modern science tells us that a small fraction of gene variants (alleles) can even be tied to any geographical region and even when they are, only about 1% of that region’s population has them anyway.
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/
LikeLike
“…you’re only White if Whites think you’re White…”
True. That idea is at the heart of both the British (one drop) racial classifications and the Spanish (degrees of Black) racial classifications. Both systems were set up and maintained by one group. Other groups had no say in the matter.
LikeLike
@ gerald
“no black person passes for white,those are white people with black ancestry”
Look at the photos of the two sets of twins. Which girls will be seen as white people with black ancestry, and which will be seen as black? Yet each twin has the same amount of white and black ancestry as her twin does.
LikeLike
” Since race is not real and is instead in the eye of the beholder, it has always been defined by the oppressors… often on-the-fly and never founded in reality. So, the idea of “passing” is more about tricking the oppressors into not oppressing you based on their irrational construct of race and not at all about actually being one thing or another.”
Nonsense, race is real since you can clearly tell the difference between a Nigerian and a Norwegian. Nothing wrong with pointing out the differences between the two. Racism is bs because it makes a chasm out of the differences. Nature recognizes no such barrier. The fraudulent nature of racism is exposed for all to see by pretending that a person who is phenotypically white, is somehow ‘passing’. The girl on the left of the picture is indeed white since that’s her phenotype and she came by it the same way any ‘real’ white person comes by theirs. Passing is more about cowardice by conforming to the lies of the racists instead of throwing their nonsense back in their faces.
“Which girls will be seen as white people with black ancestry, and which will be seen as black? Yet each twin has the same amount of white and black ancestry as her twin does.”
Not such conundrum. You look white, you are white. You look black, you are black. It becomes a thorny problem when the ‘white’ one tries to deny her ancestry based on “hints” from the racist culture around them.
LikeLike
wtf? My comment disappeared!
LikeLike
It made a quick trip to ‘moderation’ purgatory and came back. Weird.
LikeLike
“You look white, you are white. You look black, you are black.”
Ok. You realize that means two twins, not just sisters but twins, would be two separate races.
What about people who are racially ambiguous? If someone is a black/white mix but looks white to some people and black to others, does their race change depending on who they are interacting with at any given moment?
If someone is a black/white mix but most people think they look mestizo Hispanic or Arabic or Pacific Islander, are they then the race they look like?
If the individual looks more like the race of one parent but has been solely raised by the other parent entirely within that parent’s culture, are they the race that they look or the race that they were raised as?
Do they get a choice, or do strangers get to choose their identity for them without their say?
LikeLike
“Ok. You realize that means two twins, not just sisters but twins, would be two separate races.”
And? Are you saying that the ‘white’ one isn’t ‘really’ white? Is she ‘passing’ according to you? Both of her parents had white ancestors, so she inherited her white skin the same way you did. The same goes for her darker sister.
“If someone is a black/white mix but most people think they look mestizo Hispanic or Arabic or Pacific Islander, are they then the race they look like?”
Yes. If you travel from Nigeria to Norway, the people you run into will get lighter as you approach your destination.
“Do they get a choice, or do strangers get to choose their identity for them without their say?”
Did you get a say in being a white woman? I think not.
LikeLike
“Are you saying that the ‘white’ one isn’t ‘really’ white? Is she ‘passing’ according to you?”
I’m saying it’s complicated. I don’t think it’s as simple as deciding that someone’s racial identity is based on what other people think they look like. This is exactly why some people identify as mixed race or biracial.
I have in the past thought a couple people were white and later learned they identified as black. Were they ‘passing’ for black? Should I have insisted since they looked white, they were white? Even if they were born to two parents who both identified as black?
“Both of her parents had white ancestors, so she inherited her white skin the same way you did.”
No argument there, but she is not growing up white the way I did. Race as currently constructed and understood goes far beyond skin color. How she looks to the outside world may not be who she knows herself to be.
“If someone is a black/white mix but most people think they look mestizo Hispanic or Arabic or Pacific Islander, are they then the race they look like?”
Yes. If you travel from Nigeria to Norway, the people you run into will get lighter as you approach your destination.
That doesn’t answer my question. The photo of the two twins with their mother that is in the comment thread: If I didn’t know, my first guess with the darker twin would be that she’s Pacific Islander. That’s how she looks to me. Let’s say theoretically that my opinion aligns with what most other people would think about her looks. If she looks Pacific Islander to most people, is that her race?
“Did you get a say in being a white woman? I think not.”
True. But if someone insisted that I looked like a Swede, that I therefore must be a Swede, and from now on all of my official paperwork had to reflect that I was a Swede, I would have problems with that.
LikeLike
“I’m saying it’s complicated.”
Only if you ascribe some positive, essential, qualities to the white race, otherwise, it’s quite simple, she’s white and her sister is café au lait for strictly biological reasons. It wouldn’t have been ‘complicated’ if she had been dark skinned. Her white skin is the same white skin you have. I’m not terribly interested in how she or your couple identify. We both know that the only reason they would claim to be black is because of racism by whites who want to pretend that their skin color makes them ‘superior’.
“Race as currently constructed and understood goes far beyond skin color.”
Only because we live in a racist civilization.
“That doesn’t answer my question.”
Yes it does, you will encounter the a broader range of phenotypes on such route.
“But if someone insisted that I looked like a Swede, that I therefore must be a Swede, and from now on all of my official paperwork had to reflect that I was a Swede, I would have problems with that.”
You’d have a problem with such assertion only if you thought there was something wrong with being a Swede. If you lived in Sweden you’d be happy to be accepted as one.
LikeLike
@gro jo
When it comes to the concepts of racism and passing, I think we’re just presenting two sides of the same coin. I think we agree that the idea of passing can only exist in the presence of racism because without racism, people are whatever skin color phenotype they are… the end.
“If you travel from Nigeria to Norway, the people you run into will get lighter as you approach your destination.”
How many races will you encounter along that journey?
I think where we differ is in our interpretation of race. People who can roll their tongues aren’t categorized as a race. So, why categorize people with a specific skin color phenotype as a race if it’s not in the context of racism.
Again though… two sides of the same coin. You call them races and I don’t think we should. Either way, neither of us believes skin color is an indicator of anything other than that particular phenotype and I know we both believe that “Racism is bs because it makes a chasm out of the differences.”
LikeLike
Yes, we do agree about race but you can’t sidestep the very long history of racism that has turned white skin into a fetish. People of every hue ascribe all kinds of magical qualities to it. Until such ideas no longer exist I don’t find it reasonable to ignore ‘race’ as it was constructed by racists hellbent on subjugating the rest of humanity.
“How many races will you encounter along that journey?”
As many as you’d care to create.
Ramses II of Egypt is claimed to be white because he had red hair, yet a very black fellow in present day Ethiopia has a very red beard. My point was to show that the peoples living between Nigeria and Norway run from very dark to very light and could be classed into a number of ‘different’ races.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“It wouldn’t have been ‘complicated’ if she had been dark skinned.”
White is not necessarily part of an admixture. There are people who are mixed black and Asian, mixed Asian and Native American, mixed black and Native, who negotiate the same complex question of what race they should be slotted into. Your answer to this question appears to be “whichever race I think they most look like.”
That society wants to slot them into one race is, of course, a big part of what makes it complicated. I think we agree on the larger point of the absurdity and racism underlying the concept of race.
“Her white skin is the same white skin you have.”
No argument there.
“We both know that the only reason they would claim to be black is because of racism by whites who want to pretend that their skin color makes them ‘superior’.”
Speak for yourself, I don’t know that is the only reason. People usually are connected to the culture they are raised in.
“Only because we live in a racist civilization.”
No argument there.
“Yes it does, you will encounter the a broader range of phenotypes on such route.”
No, it doesn’t answer my question. You’re side-stepping it. I’m not disagreeing with your statement about encountering a range of phenotypes. It’s true as far as it goes, but it doesn’t answer the question.
“My point was to show that the peoples living between Nigeria and Norway run from very dark to very light and could be classed into a number of ‘different’ races.”
Yes, yes, race is arbitrary, an artificial construct. I agree. But why do you think your solution of “how you look to me is what race you are” is any less arbitrary than other methods of abscribing race?
“You’d have a problem with such assertion only if you thought there was something wrong with being a Swede.”
Not true. I am part Swedish. That doesn’t make me a Swede. I have no idea what it feels like to be a Swede. I have no connection to the culture whatsoever. There is nothing wrong with being a Swede, but I am not one.
I would have a problem with such an assertion because it goes against my lived experience, my familial culture, of who I understand and feel myself to be.
LikeLike
Oh don’t get me wrong. I’m not insinuating we should ignore the fetish of whiteness or racism or even be “colorblind” as a means of pretending the idea of race never existed. We absolutely need to be aware of the damage that racism has done and use our current understanding of how race has been applied in order to overcome it. At least I think so. You can’t have affirmative action or hate crime laws or reparations or anything without recognizing what has been labeled race. However, I also don’t think we should continue buying into the idea of race moving forward because it’s only purpose has been to support racism.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
Agree with you. Indeed, this is the biggest determinant in one’s racial identity.
In order to switch “races” or ethnicities, you have to disconnect from your prior one and connect to another one. This is by no means an easy thing to do and may never be complete.
There are a few ways to disconnect:
Systematic disenfranchisement from the culture in which you were raised.
This would be like what happened to people like Sandra Laing or Dave Myers or perhaps for some of the transracial adoptees. Kicking you out of a white school and forcing you to go to a colored school, or being disowned by your parents would be a sure powerful incentive to disconnect from your prior culture/ethnicity/sense of self. However, that would not per se, establish a connection to another one. It can be helped by joining some groups, or finding a spouse who identified with that ethnicity and tried to bring you into the fold.
In effect, they have to try to “pass” into the other group that they were not raised in.
I would say Barack Obama was compelled to establish connections in his early adult years in black American communities that he was not raised in, and in the beginning, he may have had trouble passing as black among blacks. A similar thing might be said about Daniel Henney (who was not raised to be Asian).
decide proactively to realign to be an ethnicity that you were not raised in and be socially accepted as such.
This is actually what passing is. This is what we mean when Anatole Broyard decided to be white.
Passing does not have to be 24/7. Some people historically have passed as white during working hours and came back home to their black families and communities. Some might even “pass” for 5 minutes to try to get accepted into something which would otherwise block them out.
re: Rachel Dolezal, I don’t think she was actually passing. In order to pass, you have to realign your connection completely and all but give up the former ones. Maybe it is like the difference between a transsexual / transgender v. transvestite. Dolezal was “dressing up” as a black person (doing “blackface” as it were) without completely giving up her white identity.
marrying into another group or being adopted into another group
Some groups recognize your membership if you marry into it or raised in it. This is not common in the USA (but I think it was common among Native Americans).
One’s racial identity is not strictly subject to what someone else assigns you. Even if you are kicked out of a white school or if you are stopped and frisked or abused by the police for looking different, that alone will not switch your own personal racial and ethnic identity in and of itself. Maybe after years of this, you may make a decision that it is easier for you to let go of certain connections and establish new ones, but it is not an automatic thing.
LikeLike
^ I had 3 bullet points above and one paragraph separator that did not come through. I hope it can still be read, otherwise, I will repost.
LikeLike
culture is not the biggest determinant to ones race, that would be the phenotype(blacks have pretty much the same culture of whites in american and anyway they are considered a different breed of people.In race-based societies like those in the americas, race is determined mostly by your look and where in the eurasian and african landmasses it originates. BTW, there are Biological differences between populations the social construct is how we interpret the differences and people seem not to understand that race is both a social construct(black white etc) and a biological reality(straight hair, coily hair) that is a FACT.When I said the girl was a white girl with african ancestry I meant the fact that physically she looks like a regular european but genetically she has more african ancestry than the overwhelming majority of them,but that doesnt mean she’snot “WHITE” or is some black person “passing”(stupid concept given the look-oriented nature of race in the americas),given that people cannot see the content of your genes just by looking at you.She and others like her are white.The one-drop rule was never used outside of USA and even in america it’s going away(everybody differentiates between Mulattoes ,blacks and Whites).Black people need to adapt to that reality
LikeLike
@gerald
“there are Biological differences between populations”
Yes, there are. However, they’re not all grouped together into a consistent package. Skin color, eyes, hair, bone structure, anything you’d like to try any group of characteristics you’d like to try and lump together to define a “race” just don’t occur consistently. Maybe if you use a “pick any two” strategy that defines a race as skin color + one or more other traits… You’re right about one thing, we can’t look at people’s genes when we see them. But when the genes are looked at, the science doesn’t support your idea that those biological differences constitute distinct races.
“…race is determined mostly by your look”
You said it yourself, race is in the eye of the beholder. We as a society recognize something that science does not. That fact makes race a social construct because the majority of a society must agree that a certain look equates to a race.
“people seem not to understand that race is both a social construct(black white etc) and a biological reality(straight hair, coily hair)”
Imagine a handful of people asserting that people with brown hair, green eyes, full lips, equal length index and ring fingers, freckles and detached earlobes are their own race. There’s a group of clearly observable, genetically defined, characteristics and I’m sure if you start looking you’ll be able to identify people fitting into that race. Except that it’s not a race, it’s just a random assortment of observable biological characteristics… because society has never had a need to construct a race for them.
“…they are considered a different breed of people”
Why is that again?
LikeLike
except that major traits that define the races in the american context are not so randomly assorted,tell me how often do you see a white or any european type with kinky hair or dark brown skin as the typical afram?,or how often do you see africans with blue eyes and straight Red hair?.there are combinations of traits that appear more often or almost exclusively in certain populations rather than others and is that combination of traits that are determined to be a”race”
LikeLike
@ gerald
“When I said the girl was a white girl with african ancestry I meant the fact that physically she looks like a regular european but genetically she has more african ancestry than the overwhelming majority of them,but that doesnt mean she’snot “WHITE” or is some black person “passing”
So are both sisters “white girls with African ancestry?”
How do you determine visually who “looks like a regular european” and who does not?
LikeLike
How do you determine visually who “looks like a regular european” and who does not?
Please,? that is a dumb question, what types of traits do people in europe tend to have?do they have the same array of traits that southeast asians or khoi san people have?youdetermine a regular european just by lookingat them is not like all groups look the same.
So are both sisters “white girls with African ancestry?”
No,only the one who looks european is a white with black ancestry(duh), The otheris just a mixed looking girl(she doesn’t look like an african or most afram girls btw).
People need to stop pretending like race in the americas is any other thing than base mostly on looks.
LikeLike
@ gerald
“Please,? that is a dumb question, what types of traits do people in europe tend to have?”
A very diverse variety of traits, actually. For example, I’ve known ethnic Italians and Germans who have darker skin than some people you would call mulatto.
“People need to stop pretending like race in the americas is any other thing than base mostly on looks.”
Fair enough, but in that case, why even bother with categorizing people by race? Why call one sister white and the other mixed? Why not just stop the whole thing?
LikeLike
nice try, the mulattoes are hybrids and hence have significant european ancestry hence some of them (not most) might be paler than some italians, but are west africans or the typical afram paler than those same italians?
LikeLike
A very diverse variety of traits, actually.
while europeans have a variety of traits do those same variety of traits appear in other continental and unrelated populations like africans or east asians?
LikeLike
gerald, are you one of those mulattoes hoping for a ‘white’ upgrade?
“there are combinations of traits that appear more often or almost exclusively in certain populations rather than others and is that combination of traits that are determined to be a”race”” Right, but not one of these traits is exclusive to one race. You seem to want to champion the racial gradations of Latin countries instead of the so called “one drop rule”. The problem with that is the fact that they both uphold white supremacy and in the end, your gradation is a variant of the one drop rule because you could be as white as that little girl in the picture and still denied the label white. In your scheme, she would not be white with black ancestors but a “sang-mêlé” i.e. somebody who is white but of known black ancestry.
“No,only the one who looks european is a white with black ancestry(duh), The otheris just a mixed looking girl(she doesn’t look like an african or most afram girls btw).”
Are you a comedian? Africa is chock full of ‘mixed looking people. You really are desperate for that white upgrade.
Duh, quit writing nonsense. Egyptians, regardless of their skin colors, are officially ‘white’. Ever heard of Mr. Mostafa Hefny? Whites like Walter Francis White, former head of the NAACP, have been classified as ‘black’, hence the confusion about the white twin not being white despite her skin color.
LikeLike
Are you a comedian? Africa is chock full of ‘mixed looking people.
Not true, west-africa, were most aframs are from is not full of mixed people.only in northeast-africa(somalians, eritreans, some ethiopians) or northafrica (thereare indeed a lot of southern eurpean looks there) are there mixed people.These regions(west and central africa as well as the south) of subsaharan africa have historically been relatively isolated from other areas hence there are not “chock full of ‘mixed looking people.”
In your scheme, she would not be white with black ancestors but a “sang-mêlé” i.e. somebody who is white but of known black ancestry.
isn’t the same thing.Remember the racial classifications are made based on a cluster of observable physical traits, hence she is not a black person, she is indeed white but with african ancestry.
Duh, quit writing nonsense. Egyptians, regardless of their skin colors, are officially ‘white’.
most modern egyptians are caucasians.you gave me one or two examples who dont prove anything because there are millions of egyptians, bythat same token, rami malek who plays the lead character in the series mr.robot and is of full egyptian heritage can counter your examples.btw aframs dont come from egypt but from west africa.
Right, but not one of these traits is exclusive to one race.
not true, again, how common is straight red hair among west africans and asians?how common is kinky hair among the chinese, there are certain combinations of traits that appear more or only in certain groups rather than others
You really are desperate for that white upgrade.
first what i have stated are facts based on biology not social science(which is where the social construct claim comes from btw) i believe that is better to know the truth rather than being willfully ignorant then you are assuming my racial background which you do not know.lol
LikeLike
@ gerald
“while europeans have a variety of traits do those same variety of traits appear in other continental and unrelated populations like africans”
“These regions(west and central africa as well as the south) of subsaharan africa have historically been relatively isolated from other areas hence there are not “chock full of ‘mixed looking people.”
Modern genetics has found that “sub-Saharan” Africans are the most genetically diverse in the world. Many of those traits are recessive and seldom show up in the phenotype, but they still exist. For example, there are distinct groups of people in Africa who have the same epicanthic fold as do East Asians.
Most of the traits that you call unique to non-Africans actually were carried by migrating populations out of Africa, where the reduction of genetic diversity within an isolate group caused those traits to become more commonly expressed.
“No,only the one who looks european is a white with black ancestry(duh), The otheris just a mixed looking girl”
Why just a mixed looking girl? Is being “white with black ancestry” more special than being “just mixed”?
LikeLike
@ gerald
“first what i have stated are facts based on biology”
Actually, what Open Minded Observer said to you above is based on the most recent biological science:
“when the genes are looked at, the science doesn’t support your idea that those biological differences constitute distinct races.”
There is no such thing as race except as a social construct.
In a rigorously scientific world, the sisters would be seen only as having skin that varies slightly in tone — not as white, mulatto, or black, not as racially European or African.
LikeLike
@gerald
” i believe that is better to know the truth rather than being willfully ignorant ”
I was hoping that was true which is why I bothered to engage with you. However:
1. Despite genetic science, you choose to categorize people into races.
2. You even called them “breeds” at one point.
3. You do this based on your interpretation of a person’s looks.
4. You cannot identify a specific set of traits that define each race.
5. None of the traits you did mention are unique to any one of your races.
6. You have used the absence of a trait as rationale for categorizing a person into a race.
“there are certain combinations of traits that appear more or only in certain groups rather than others”
That’s what I alluded to above when I stated that maybe your classification system was melanin+1. As in, if you’re pale, you’re white. If you’re brown plus one additional trait from a list of possible characteristics, then you’re whatever “race” that other trait occurs most commonly in.
That’s simply not how science works. In order for there to be distinct, classifiable races (or breeds as you put it) , those groups of traits need to be exclusive to their race and present in everyone categorized into that race. It’s not enough even to decide that pale skin and red hair is exclusively White because pale skin and red hair does not define White. If we were to accept your argument above that pale skin alone defines White, then I suppose you could classify all humans into two races. White and Brown (I know, but bear with me here). However, you insist that Brown is subdivided into other races. So, you mentioned kinky hair. I’m not entirely sure what that means, but if we accept your premise that dark skin plus kinky hair is the defining characteristic group for a Black race, then were would you classify a dark skinned person with straight hair? I know you mentioned Asian above as another possibility where that person might be classified, but I’m certain you can imagine a dark-skinned person with straight hair that won’t fit into your idea of an Asian race. I get that you personally would find a way to classify that person based on a series of optional and subjective visual characteristics, but again, that’s just not how science works.
Science is definable, repeatable, quantifiable and consistent. Society’s concept of race is based on gut reactions to individual interpretations of the visual presentation people.
I’m done trying to educate you. If you truly prefer the truth to willful ignorance, please continue your research. I promise to remain open-minded as you provide supporting evidence and “facts based on biology not social science”. I’m just not open to any more of your opinions based on social group-think instead of biology.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gerald, enough with the comedy!
LikeLiked by 1 person
This guy really doesn’t get out much.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh m god where should I start
Despite genetic science, you choose to categorize people into races.
You don’t seem to rasp the logic of my argument,race or whaterver other name we use to name different groups is a social construct, just like the different breed of dogs(poodle, German shepherd etc) are socially constructed.Social constructs are in essence just mental models we use to understand the world around us but since they are used o try to understand it they most be based on real grounds. So black mulatto, yellow,white are socially constructed characteristics but they are based on underlying biological realities.so THE LABELS ARE FAKE BUT THE DIFFERENCES ARE REAL.
when I stated that maybe your classification system was melanin+1. As in, if you’re pale, you’re white. If you’re brown plus one additional trait from a list of possible characteristics, then you’re whatever “race” that other trait occurs most commonly in.
not what i said at all, what makes a caucasoid is not only pale skin(many of them don’t even have pale skin, caucasoids extend from europe to north india ) but a whole combination of traits that come with certain populations but not others(cranio-facial features, skeletal structure,hair texture and color) etc and that between continental groups(Africans, Mongoloids, Caucasoids) there are certain traits that one possesses but others not.(we generally see kinky hair and dark brown skin together as well as very full lips-in non mixed populations that is-)I said that these differences are not about skin color only but about a broad range of traits that make some look a certain way.
Tel me something if race s a social construct and you can assort racial traits freely and create races at will how come NEVER in history west africans or even south africans have been considered to be part of the same race as east asians or western eurasians(even before the 200 yearrise of europeans)? why middle easterners have since before the middle ages treated africans as a different race? if you are right there might have been in history societies in which caucasians and negroids(hate that term btw) considered themselves to be of the same race but i thas never happened.
Modern genetics has found that “sub-Saharan” Africans are the most genetically diverse in the world.
that still doesnt mean they have the same genes as non subsaharan africans. still the specific variations for flat mongoloid faces or curly red hair are not shown in them.you can have a wild variety of cars in your garage and still not have a masseratti and a lamborgini.Just because they have a lot of diversity doesnt mean they contain all the genes in the world.so nice try.
Most of the traits that you call unique to non-Africans actually were carried by migrating populations out of Africa,
Not true there were other populations of hominids outside of africa that developed independently from the africans(neanderthal, denisovans etc) that developed the traits you say, for example Neanderthals had pale skin and colored hair, also the so called pekin man had slanted eyes.
Science is definable, repeatable, quantifiable and consistent
Science is also falsifiable, it it werent it would be dogma.btw I am a trained biologist, what i just said are THE FACTS.There are biological differences that cluster certain traits only in certain groups and not in others but the way we interpret such traits is socially constructed.
LikeLike
“btw I am a trained biologist”
Apparently you were trained in the 1800s.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hum!!??
And so… let’s look at the following pekin man … slanted eyes:
https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photos-young-bushman-woman-child-image11046403
Right!? Or…
LikeLike
@Solitaire said: “Most of the traits that you call unique to non-Africans actually were carried by migrating populations out of Africa.”
@Gerald then responded by saying: “Not true there were other populations of hominids outside of africa that developed independently from the africans(neanderthal, denisovans etc).”
Gerald, …. Solitaire is correct and you are a bald face liar simply because the “Out of Africa” theory has never been debunked and never will be. Perhaps this is why you’ve failed to proved any links to further support your claim because in reality, they are clearly unsupported.
Hang on, let me help you to disabuse yourself with some facts.
“When our ancestors first migrated out of Africa around 60,000 years ago, they were not alone. At least two of our hominid cousins had made the same journey—Neanderthals and Denisovans. Neanderthals, the better known of the two species, left Africa about 300,000 years ago and settled in Europe and parts of western Asia. The Denisovans are a much more recent addition to the human family tree. In 2008, paleoanthropologists digging in a cave in southern Siberia unearthed a 40,000-year-old adult tooth and an exquisitely preserved fossilized pinkie bone that had belonged to a young girl who was between five and seven years old when she died.”
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/denisovan/
Even further, with your current level of thinking, I personally believe that you were trained with Biology training records that were left over from the 1600’s, not 1800’s.
LikeLike
Gerry, glad to read that you are a trained biologist. Tell me what the differences are between the ‘races’ beyond the obvious ones of skin, hair and facial features?
“In your scheme, she would not be white with black ancestors but a “sang-mêlé” i.e. somebody who is white but of known black ancestry.
isn’t the same thing.Remember the racial classifications are made based on a cluster of observable physical traits, hence she is not a black person, she is indeed white but with african ancestry.”
We are in agreement here, but tell me, why the label “sang-mêlé”, why not call these people just plain old ‘white’? We both know why that wasn’t an option, white supremacy must be upheld. Let’s drop the ‘science’ talk, I’d like you to state what makes whites ‘superior’.
Are you familiar with the Redlegs of Barbados? What role do you assign them in your white racial superiority scheme?
“For the small Redleg community still living on Barbados, most live a poorer standard of life than the blacks, relying on farming or running small shops and brothels that serve the wealthier blacks.[4]”
Redleg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The exception that proves your rule, no doubt?
LikeLike
“Not true, west-africa, were most aframs are from is not full of mixed people.”
No shit Sherlock. Mauritania is not in West Africa? Tuaregs don’t come in different skin tones? etc. I take back the crack about a mulatto wanting a white upgrade, no, more likely, you just got your ‘degree’ in Ni**erology and are here to dazzle us with your ‘brilliance’.
By the way, what does it matter where most “aframs” come from? Blacks were first identified as such by whites who dealt with the peoples of Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan, says so in your bible.
LikeLike
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/science/skin-color-race.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6365/eaan8433
LikeLike
Come on people, enough with all the ‘science’ geekiness, Gerry doesn’t give a damn about ‘science’, he just needs a grade for this, his final test, to get his degree in Ni**erology. I rate him a 10 out of 100. Better luck next time Gerry, how’s Tom doing?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good to know you are stillup for a fight.let’s start:
the “Out of Africa” theory has never been debunked and never will be.
Then its not science ts religion or pseudoscience,remember science is falsifiable. and the out of africa theory(OoAT) is just that, A THEORY, not a law and yet,there are new findings that challenge it: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/evolution-theory-out-of-africa-dali-skull-china-homo-erectus-sapiens-latest-a8064306.html
https://www.thoughtco.com/out-of-africa-hypothesis-172030
No shit Sherlock. Mauritania is not in West Africa? Tuaregs don’t come in different skin tones? the tuaregs are a small minority of people(1to 1.5million) and are NOT the ancestors of Aframs. The ancestors of aframs are not mixed like SOME tuaregs are.
By the way, what does it matter where most “aframs” come from? Blacks were first identified as such by whites who dealt with the peoples of Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan, says so in your bible.
it matters because the racial schemes in the americas were created around the ancestors of aframs and other africans(senegalese, ghanaians etc) in the americas not the tuaregs who were not brought to the western hemisphere as slaves.BTW the Bible is from the middle east and not from europe.
African populations vary tremendously in skin color, yes indeed, if you countafrica as a whole with the cacasians of the north, the mixed people in the east(ethiopians,erritreans) and the sahel and the blacks and whites across the south.but if you focus on the subsharanpopulations, whhile indeed there;s variations , is not, on a phenotypical level that great.
LikeLike
@ Solitaire
From what I understand all humans are genetically African by and large – the gene frequencies may vary but not the genes themselves. However there are a few genes that show up only outside of Africa. The Neanderthal and Denisovan genes, for example, and some mutations, at least three: one for blue eyes and two for pale skin, a West Eurasian version and the East Eurasian version.
LikeLike
abagond,great to to engage with you, have been reading your very informative blog for a while,get me great access to other perspectives.However maybe you’ve noticed that it seems that some commenters fail to grasp that having differences among populations doesnt mean that populations are superior or inferior, just dfferent.
LikeLike
@ gerald
What about Morgan Freeman and Tupac Shakur?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_people_of_Tuareg_descent
LikeLike
What about Morgan Freeman and Tupac Shakur?
those are the ONLY two.examples.the tuaregs were not taken to the western hemisphere in meaningful numbers.By that token there was an indian princess taken as slave to mexico in the 16th or 17th centuries , does it mean that mexicans are descendant of south asians.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
I agree, which is why I said above “most of the traits” instead of “all.” ☺
I have just been doing some reading on the genetics of red hair, and if I understood it correctly, red hair appears to be linked to one of the mutations for fair skin — but it also seems that there are additional factors that scientists still don’t fully understand.
Then add the fact that inheritance of hair color isn’t neatly cut and dried. It’s possible for one individual to have head hair of different colors (I have three: red, blonde, dark brown; the end result is a blend called honey blonde). Or men can have a beard that is a different color (e.g., redder, darker) than the hair on their head.
And then there are the blondes and redheads of Papua New Guinea, which again the scientists don’t seem to have figured out yet, but it doesn’t appear to be due to interracial mixing or even caused by the same mutation as in Europeans.
LikeLike
@ gerald
Only two examples, sure, but if it shows up that easily among Black celebrities, then it is unlikely to be all that uncommon. The Tuaregs were deeply involved in the West African slave trade and had slaves of their own.
LikeLike
@ gerald
“African populations vary tremendously in skin color, yes indeed, if you countafrica as a whole with the cacasians of the north, the mixed people in the east(ethiopians,erritreans) and the sahel and the blacks and whites across the south.but if you focus on the subsharanpopulations, whhile indeed there;s variations , is not, on a phenotypical level that great.”
You obviously did not follow the links, or you would have seen that the authors discussed the introduction into Africa of one genetic mutation for lighter skin that arose outside of Africa. They made a very clear distinction between different genes and alleles. There isn’t one single gene for light skin.
The researchers also said in the Science article:
“We observe extensive variation in skin pigmentation in Africa, with lowest melanin levels observed in southern African San hunter-gatherers and highest levels in East African Nilo-Saharan pastoralists.”
Go to Google Images and compare the skin tones of those two peoples.
LikeLike
there is no info to back up that in the ancestry of aframs is significantly related to tuaregs, also remember that tuaregs are nomads and hence their numbers historically have been very small to have any major impact in a large population like aframs.Tuaregs were involved in the transaharan slave trade to the MENA im not aware they were that significantly involved in the transatlantic one who was in mali senegal and ghana.can you provide me with info please?
LikeLike
We observe extensive variation in skin pigmentation in Africa, with lowest melanin levels observed in southern African San hunter-gatherers and highest levels in East African Nilo-Saharan pastoralists.”
the san hunter gatherers have lower levels of melanin relatuve to OTHER africans but as a whole their appearance is not significantly different from that of other sub-saharan peoples,or do you really think that these hunter gatherers have the same skin tone as a swiss?
LikeLike
Seriously, Gerald, where and when did you study biology that you use the ancient discredited Three Race model? And that you somehow know (based on what, exactly?) that Peking Man had the epicanthic fold? And that you don’t seem to understand the genetics discussed in the articles I linked to?
Perhaps you can share the links to your research? Or if you wish to maintain anonymity, to the research of your esteemed colleagues that supports the scientific assertions you’re making here?
LikeLike
“the san hunter gatherers have lower levels of melanin relatuve to OTHER africans but as a whole their appearance is not significantly different from that of other sub-saharan peoples,or do you really think that these hunter gatherers have the same skin tone as a swiss”
I think the difference in skin tone between the San and the darkest peoples of Africa is many magnitudes greater than the difference in skin tone between the Swiss and the Italians or the Greeks.
Or should I say Albanians? 😉
LikeLike
“The ancestors of aframs are not mixed like SOME tuaregs are.” You know that how?
“BTW the Bible is from the middle east and not from europe.” Thanks for the precision about the bible but you forgot that the ancient Greeks, the ‘fathers’ of modern European civilization, described blacks as Ethiopians or “burnt faces” long before somebody from western Europe did.
LikeLike
I THINK the difference in skin tone between the San and the darkest peoples of Africa is many magnitudes greater than the difference in skin tone between the Swiss and the Italians or the Greeks.
Or should I say Albanians? 😉
YOU THINK, but thats not the case, check out pics of the san and then of bantu peoples and you’ll see that the skin color is not that variable, whereas southern europeans have olive or tanned skin very different from that of pale-pinkish northern europeans.
you use the ancient discredited Three Race model?
first i do not subscribe to any model .I’m only telling that the “model” does indeed seem to fit the clustering of certain phenotypical(and since phenotype is an expression of genotype also that) traits seen in different groups of relatively historically isolated populations.you can call the populations different names and ascribe to them different social values but is likely that they will always be distinguished among similar lines for most of history.If these differences are social constructs why throughout history whenever these groups come in contact they always divide themselves based on these physical looks(mongoloids and caucasoids in central asia, africans and caucasoids in MENA and europe and the western hemisphere)..Remember,If it keeps happening even without”white supremacy”
(remember europeans werent dominant in the world before 1800),isnt there an underlying reason?
Perhaps you can share the links to your research? Or if you wish to maintain anonymity, to the research of your esteemed colleagues that supports the scientific assertions you’re making here?
nice try, it would not be very difficult to track me and there is a possibility that i’m likely get into trouble if some of my colleagues read these discussions 😉
LikeLike
The ancestors of aframs are not mixed like SOME tuaregs are.” You know that how? Because of history duh, the tuaregs are nomads from the desert and the transatalntic slave trade happened far from it in the coasts of west africa involving different peoples.(Most afram ancestors come from places like senegal and ghana)
“BTW the Bible is from the middle east and not from europe.” Thanks for the precision about the bible but you forgot that the ancient Greeks, the ‘fathers’ of modern European civilization, described blacks as Ethiopians or “burnt faces” long before somebody from western Europe did.
so what? the racial system in the AMERICAS was not created by ancient greeks enslaving ancient ethiopians but by atlantic europeans enslaving atlantic africans.
LikeLike
@ gerald
“check out pics of the san and then of bantu peoples and you’ll see that the skin color is not that variable, whereas southern europeans have olive or tanned skin very different from that of pale-pinkish northern europeans.”
I see that I can add “color wheel” to the list of things you’re unfamiliar with.
“why throughout history whenever these groups come in contact they always divide themselves based on these physical looks(mongoloids and caucasoids in central asia, africans and caucasoids in MENA and europe and the western hemisphere).”
You can’t have truly been reading Abagond’s blog for very long or you would know he has proven this to be untrue in a number of posts.
I would also appreciate it if you would stop using the term caucasoid, which I find personally offensive. I’m sure others here feel the same about your use of mongoloid.
“there is a possibility that i’m likely get into trouble if some of my colleagues read these discussions”
Oh, I just bet.
Humor me this much, then — provide the source or sources from which you got the idea that Peking Man had the epicanthic fold. I want to see the scientific proof behind this assertion.
LikeLike
You can’t have truly been reading Abagond’s blog for very long or you would know he has proven this to be untrue in a number of posts.
yes i read him to get a hold on different opinions than my own not because i agree with everything he posts. btw when in history have these groups organized around one race?
LikeLike
@Gerald said: “Then its not science ts religion or pseudoscience,remember science is falsifiable. and the out of africa theory(OoAT) is just that, A THEORY, not a law and yet,there are new findings that challenge it:”
Science is falsifiable, really? And may I ask who has been falsifying the data? Never mind, there is a certain group of people that comes to mind quite readily.
Well of course, a theory is just that,… a theory or in the alternative, a set of ideas that explain a belief. What you supposedly presented was simply a “challenge” as you put it. And to merely challenge a long held belief is not the same as presenting a strong enough case to actually overturn a previously held belief or to uproot entirely an old theory.
But wait, it gets worst. The video on the link provided by Gerald the Biologist, clearly did not debunk the “Out of Africa” theory, not once, but twice within a 34 seconds video with these two statements:
“In fact, there may have been intense intermingling as early humans in Asia moved out of and back into Africa.” This is clearly indicative that the early Asians migrated from Africa, to Asia and then back into Africa. Therefore, I don’t see how this video is supporting the idea, as you suggested, an “Out of Asia” theory.
And then this statement: “This means that the modern human is comprised of the DNA of ancestors from both Asia and Africa.” Just because DNA from the continents of Africa and Asia were intertwined doesn’t at all defeat the “Out of Africa” theory. In fact, it actually supports it even further and contrary to what you asserted.
Check out this video by a Chinese geneticist who confirms through research that they came from Africa as well:
http://www.trinicenter.com/FirstChinese.htm
LikeLike
to the degree i remember i never said new findings debunk the THEORY, just that they challenge it.The fact is that we don’t know all the facts of the far past and hence both the OoAT and its challenges can be falsifiable if evidence shows.you are treating it however as a dogma.
Therefore, I don’t see how this video is supporting the idea, as you suggested, an “Out of Asia” theory.
Silly you,I have never even claimed the idea of an out of “asia theory”, show me where i even mentioned such a thing?
There are increasing challenges to the OoAT, that is FACT.
http://www.trinicenter.com/FirstChinese.htm Unfortunately for you,this is not some credible source. is a bunch of false Afrocentric claims like:Even the sacred Manchu dynasty shows this Negro strain.. The lower part of the face of the Emperor Pu-yi of Manchukuo, direct descendant of the Manchu rulers of China, is most distinctly Negroid. “Chinese chroniclers report that a Negro Empire existed in the South of China at the dawn of that country’s history.”
the manchus were descendents of jurchen from Northeast asia spoke a tungusid language and probably most never even met an african in their lives.also no such Negro empire ever existed in China.
LikeLike
btw the OoAT is not even old its just been around for a few decades.
LikeLike
LikeLike
“to the degree i remember i never said new findings debunk the THEORY, just that they challenge it.” – Gerald
Well then, how so? To me, it’s not even an “increased challenge” as you put it because the video itself states: “In fact, there may have been intense intermingling as early humans in Asia moved out of and back into Africa.”
If Africans migrated to Asia and then returned to Africa, how is this event even a mere “increased challenge,” much less a debunk?
Either theoretically or as an analogy of your stance, would be to send an astronaut from here to Mars. But when the astronaut returns to Earth, he would then most certainly be considered a Martian. Would you agree???
“Unfortunately for you,this is not some credible source. is a bunch of false Afrocentric claims. – Gerald
Really? You are much more comical than I first envisioned. So, are you telling me that there are a bunch of Kneegroes working for Taipei Times and at Fudan University Shanghai writing these Afro-centric articles??
Just ANSWER THE QUESTIONS from my two previous posts! Who are the people falsifying archaeology records and who are these humanoids that originated outside of Africa??
Additionally, at this point, it appears as if it’ll be quite difficult for you to discern the difference between a llama and a giraffe.
I’m done with you, … see ya!!
LikeLike
The Thought.co link doesn’t debunk the Out of Africa theory, either, and in fact states that it is the common consensus among scientists, with the debates being about how many early waves of migration and when.
LikeLike
@Gerald
So, if I’m understanding you, your definition of “race” is more of a Venn diagram with 3 intersecting circles. You believe you can sort people into one of the 3 circles by looking at them.
Do you understand that genetics would place most people somewhere in the intersecting areas of such a diagram?
Do you also understand that the social construct of race (what you have defined as the false labels placed on real biological differences), does not allow for such overlaps?
In fact, if you go back upthread and actually read the link to United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind that I posted, you’ll see that the Supreme Court clearly ruled that Caucasian and White are not the same. Therefore, this entire discussion of geographically-linked gene clusters being used to substantiate the social construct of race is moot because they are not at all the same.
If you disagree, please clearly define the traits that make a person White/Caucasian. That’s a commonly referenced race in the United States and elsewhere, so it should be easy for you to define. Keep in mind, it’s not “other” so don’t define it as the absence of traits that you’d associate with other races. Please include only the traits that categorize a person as White.
LikeLike
@ gerald
Huh? Out of Africa goes back to at least Darwin, making it well over a hundred years old. Since the apes that humans were most closely related to were all in Africa, it stood to reason that humans came from Africa too.
LikeLike
@ gerald
You need to keep in mind that race in the US is exaggerated, by at least two factors:
#1. Most people come from the far ends of continents: the Far East (Asians), the Far West (Whites), West Africa (Blacks) and Siberia (Natives).
#2. Segregation and the One Drop Rule keeps the races distinct. If people in the US mixed freely then nearly all the babies would be tan-skinned in a hundred years. I know that sounds too quick, but the numbers work out.
But even in the hyper-racialized US there are people who can pass as either Black or White. Which makes nonsense of the idea that race is simply a matter of genetics.
LikeLike
Some studies suggest that humans might be more related to orangutans, which have been in Asia well before humans appeared.
I am sure this will still be studied further.
Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090623-humans-chimps-related.html
(or is National Geographic just being racist?)
LikeLike
“There are biological differences that cluster certain traits only in certain groups and not in others”
The real suspect word here is “only.” These traits may have clustered in certain groups due to migration patterns and geographical isolation, but all those traits are perfectly capable of being passed to any human.
LikeLike
When I was a kid I used to think that blond hair could only appear in White people. Blond hair implied fair skin so to speak.
Until I saw in a magazine pictures of dark skinned people who happened to be blond!. Not one single individual but lots of them!
Australian Aborigines!.
I learned then to be a lot humbler in my guesses of what could appear in human beings.
LikeLike
https://www.nature.com/news/blonde-hair-evolved-more-than-once-1.10587
LikeLike
https://www.google.com/amp/s/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/news/2014/06/140601-blond-hair-color-gene-mutation-science
LikeLike
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2012/05/naturally-blond-hair-in-solomon-islanders-rooted-in-native-gene-study-finds.html
LikeLike
Solitaire
there was less pronouncement of race in older times because populations that looked vastly different were more isolated and rarely interacted with one another not because the ancients didn’t see the differences.when they interacted, usually they DID differentiate between one another(as blacks and the caucasian north africans or caucasians and east asian looking people in central asia).
Huh? Out of Africa goes back to at least Darwin, making it well over a hundred years old. Darwin merely made a HYPOTHESIS not a theory.The THEORY actually goes by the the discovery of mitochondrial DNA by cann and wilson n the 1980’s.
Either theoretically or as an analogy of your stance, would be to send an astronaut from here to Mars. But when the astronaut returns to Earth, he would then most certainly be considered a Martian. Would you agree??? if you send a singe astronaut NOT, but if you send a few colonies of astronauts that develop new traits for adaptation to mars and leave them say 5000-10,000 years there without conctact with the rest of humans on earth(who would themselves keep changing as well) you probably will have a branching out into different species, the one in mars being reasonably able to be called martian.they would be related to the changed humans on earth but will not be the same species.
Just ANSWER THE QUESTIONS from my two previous posts! Who are the people falsifying archaeology records and who are these humanoids that originated outside of Africa?? Of course if by falsifying you mean that Europeans INVENTED archaeology.
The Thought.co link doesn’t debunk the Out of Africa theory, either, and in fact states that it is the common consensus among scientists, with the debates being about how many early waves of migration and when.
I NEVER mentioned DEBUNKED, I spoke of challenges to the OoAT, that have modified the original argument based on new archaeological and DNA findings.
Do you understand that genetics would place most people somewhere in the intersecting areas of such a diagram? hat’s not accurate for that would indicate that most people around the world are intermixed which is certainly not the case.Most people in that view would either be mulattoes, blasians,or eurasians which is not the case.
please clearly define the traits that make a person White/Caucasian. cranio-facial features(prominent nose,skull shape, etc),hair texture(that is different from both east asians and africans) and skeletal shape.
abagond
@ gerald
You need to keep in mind that race in the US is exaggerated, by at least two factors:
#1. Most people come from the far ends of continents: the Far East (Asians), the Far West (Whites), West Africa (Blacks) and Siberia (Natives).
#2. Segregation and the One Drop Rule keeps the races distinct. If people in the US mixed freely then nearly all the babies would be tan-skinned in a hundred years. I know that sounds too quick, but the numbers work out.
But even in the hyper-racialized US there are people who can pass as either Black or White. Which makes nonsense of the idea that race is simply a matter of genetics.
insightful.Its true the hyperracialized context in the US is perhaps due to the populations of america coming from the “Far ends”, noticed that in the americas as a whole like in brazil there is also many race-base systems they dont get as much attention as in the USA and people there are more discreet but they exists.which begs the question , do you think that as migrations of very different peoples are occurring around the world (Africans in europe and china or, east asians in Africa) would that lead to these regions becoming more race-conscious like America? Is racial conflict and race-based systems an outcome of large scale interracial contacts?
LikeLike
Wow, 5,000-10,000 years of genetic separation can produce a separate species?
Gee, learn something new every day. 🙄
Amazing that native Americans were able to breed with Africans and Europeans after 11,000 years of separation.
LikeLike
jefe
but will not be the same species
Wow, 5,000-10,000 years of genetic separation can produce a separate species?
Gee, learn something new every day. 🙄
Amazing that native Americans were able to breed with Africans and Europeans after 11,000 years of separation.
In a sense you are right, 5000-10000 years might not be enough i was typing fast and might have made a faulty assumption but take into account that Evolution has no single schedule and also we are taking a hypothetical and very extreme case (planetary isolation of human colonies of mars vs those on earth).Native americans after all remained in the same planet.so I assumed in a dramatically different evironment things might speed up alittle. check this out:
https://futurism.com/new-species-evolving-unbelievable-rate/
Obviously its on birds but gives you a sense of how Natural selection works and how its pressures produce differentiation in populations:
Before now, it was largely accepted that the evolution of a new species takes an incredibly long time. However, due to the unique circumstances and environment offered by this isolated archipelago, “Big Bird” proved to researchers that the evolution of a new species is possible in just two generations.
However when you take the underlying concept i was making, to the other commenter that if you allow for a lot of time of natural selection to work in different environments on initially similar populations, a branching out occurs that differentiates them
LikeLike
@ gerald
You say that you’re a trained biologist. What is the highest degree you’ve attained? Just curious.
Forget humans for a moment and think about animals. What is the difference between a breed, a subspecies, and a species?
LikeLike
@ gerald
“there was less pronouncement of race in older times because populations that looked vastly different were more isolated and rarely interacted with one another not because the ancients didn’t see the differences.”
Previously you argued that humanity has always divided themselves into three racial groups. But as what I linked to shows, when those groups met in ancient times, they didn’t divide themselves by race. They made divisions by religion or language or culture.
If you think people of different races rarely interacted with each other, you don’t know much about Ancient Egypt or the Roman empire.
LikeLike
I never claimed people ALWAYS divided themselves into three racial groups I said than in the RARE cases in which such groups interacted in large numbers they divided themselves on the bases of phenotype.
If you think people of different races rarely interacted with each other, you don’t know much about Ancient Egypt or the Roman empire.
in those empires people didn’t interact on a regular basis with people of other races like they do in america ,given that the different groups generally occupied different territories.You seem to ignore that people in the ancient world mostly stayed in the place of their birth and its surroundings,the mobility we are accustomed to is a modern phenomenon given by technological revolutions in internal combustion engine,fossil fuels etc.so it was very difficult for any given individual to interact with people of dramatically different phenotypical characteristics.
LikeLike
@ gerald
You most certainly did:
Could you please also explain to me the difference between a crossbreed and a hybrid?
LikeLike
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2010/feb/26/roman-york-skeleton
LikeLike
How does “WHENEVER these groups come in contact they always divide themselves based on these physical looks” differs from “in the RARE cases in which such groups interacted in large numbers they divided themselves on the bases of phenotype”?. which are both statements I made.
On the otherhand the former statements are very different from:”humanity has always divided themselves into three racial groups.” which is the statement you made.
My point is that different races were rarely together in the same states during history but in the rare instances in which they were they divided themselves o the basis of looks.
You seem to lack reading comprehension skills.
LikeLike
How did the Romans conquer — and more importantly, maintain dominance over — an empire that stretched from Egypt to Britain without coming into contact with people who looked different from them?
How did they do this just sitting at home twiddling their thumbs?
LikeLike
“How does “WHENEVER these groups come in contact they always divide themselves based on these physical looks” differs from “in the RARE cases in which such groups interacted in large numbers they divided themselves on the bases of phenotype”?. which are both statements I made.”
They do say the same thing. Problem is, what they say is demonstrably untrue. When these groups interacted in large numbers — and Ancient Egypt was a veritable crossroads — they did not always divide themselves the way we do now.
The Ivory Bangle lady was a Roman. Point blank, end stop. Today you would call her black or mulatto.
LikeLike
yes but how different are an italian a syrian or a Celt?Do they look more different from one another than they do relative to an igbo or an uyghur?
LikeLike
The Ivory Bangle lady was a Roman. Point blank, end stop. Today you would call her black or mulatto.
That,s only ONE person and there weren’t many black people in ancient Rome hence ,there could not be a social division similar to that of the US.Do you think black people would be treated the same if they were only 500, 000 people outof ca.320 Million?the fact that ancients might have seen One or a handful of people of a different race doesnt mean they saw them often.
Think of today in places like eastern europe people rarely see blacks and even until the 1960’s even western europeans like Germans, rarely saw any blacks either .Your conception of race in antiquity is seriously flawed.BEFORE MODERN TIMES PEOPLE RARELY INTERACTED WITH LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE FROM OTHER RACES.especially outside of the americas.
LikeLike
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/12/black-people-presence-in-british-history-for-centuries
LikeLike
https://www.historyextra.com/period/roman/how-ethnically-diverse-was-roman-britain/
LikeLike
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23053734?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
LikeLike
https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/ElAnt/V1N4/thompson.html
LikeLike
@Gerald
“cranio-facial features(prominent nose,skull shape, etc),hair texture(that is different from both east asians and africans) and skeletal shape.”
Oh yeah, that’s not subjective at all. I’ve looked around and I see lots of people with cranio-facial features. They all seem to have noses and skull shapes. I saw a guy last night that had a very prominent nose and a big forehead. Kinda stuck out over his eyes. I guess that’s a prominent skull shape. He was bald too… so even though you didn’t define “Asian hair” or “African hair”, I figure “no hair” fits your description. So he was totally White.
“You don’t seem to (g)rasp the logic of my argument”
You’re right. I don’t.
“(T)hat’s not accurate for that would indicate that most people around the world are intermixed which is certainly not the case.”
Bless your heart. You didn’t read anything that any of us linked to did you?
” i believe that is better to know the truth rather than being willfully ignorant”
I call B.S.
LikeLike
@ gerald
“Think of today in places like eastern europe people rarely see blacks and even until the 1960’s even western europeans like Germans, rarely saw any blacks either .”
And yet they adhere to negative stereotypes about blacks. They believe all sorts of racist things even though they have little to no contact with black people.
How do you reconcile that fact with your other statement:
“there weren’t many black people in ancient Rome hence ,there could not be a social division similar to that of the US.Do you think black people would be treated the same if they were only 500, 000 people outof ca.320 Million?”
Do you really think that white people treat black people differently based on how few bkacks there are within a predominantly white population?
LikeLike
@Gerald:
My father is a Martian and my mother is a Neptunian. Can you explain the genetic diversity in such a match? Seriously, quit while your still ahead.
LikeLike
You seem to lack reading comprehension skills.
After reading your gibberish, or attempting to, I am heartily thankful for this!
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ gerald
Not necessarily. I think the “us v them” thing is a human universal, or nearly so, but the line between us and them does not have to be race. It could be religion, class, caste, nation, language, sexual orientation, gang colours, whatever the powers that be want to make a big deal about. Even eye colour will work:
LikeLike
@ Solitaire
From what I understand, Neanderthals also had redheads, but not through the same genes as present-day Europeans, even though some of them live in the very same places.
LikeLike