humans
Options
XIII
Members Posts: 631
if this should not be in gns my bad ..
anyways do you think everyone in our society will ever be enlightened to the point that they can assess another human being without making any preconceived notions about them based on skin pigmentation, accent/ethnicity, sexual orientation .. ?
sometimes i smh at sum of the ? i read here cuz the way yall talk its like black folk and white folk are on some they are different species or some ? .
like think of it like this. we're all different. human beings as a species put too much of a premium on physical appearance. if you compare any random black person A to any random black person B and then compare him again to a white person C your bound to say that oh ? , A is more similar to B than he is to C cuz they look the same
but once you go down to the genetics you find that that ? makes no sense. if you compare A, B and C you find that B is just as different from A as C is cuz the actual dna coding for yalls physical apperance is negligible. if there's anybody who you are really similar too genetically its your immediate family. once you move away from there you are nor more related to any human being physical appearance starts becoming a poor indicator of genetic relationships becuase its impact on your 'youness' is really little.
^ They are from new guinea. they look like regular black folk. however, once you look at their dna you find that their closest kins are asians and not africans. they are no more related to africans than white people are.
^ san woman from southern africa
^ asian woman
both have almost similar physical appearance if you look at the ? structure/epicanthic folds but are not related to each other in any shape or form.
like aint this ? impact on how you ? think ever ...?
anyways do you think everyone in our society will ever be enlightened to the point that they can assess another human being without making any preconceived notions about them based on skin pigmentation, accent/ethnicity, sexual orientation .. ?
sometimes i smh at sum of the ? i read here cuz the way yall talk its like black folk and white folk are on some they are different species or some ? .
like think of it like this. we're all different. human beings as a species put too much of a premium on physical appearance. if you compare any random black person A to any random black person B and then compare him again to a white person C your bound to say that oh ? , A is more similar to B than he is to C cuz they look the same
but once you go down to the genetics you find that that ? makes no sense. if you compare A, B and C you find that B is just as different from A as C is cuz the actual dna coding for yalls physical apperance is negligible. if there's anybody who you are really similar too genetically its your immediate family. once you move away from there you are nor more related to any human being physical appearance starts becoming a poor indicator of genetic relationships becuase its impact on your 'youness' is really little.
^ They are from new guinea. they look like regular black folk. however, once you look at their dna you find that their closest kins are asians and not africans. they are no more related to africans than white people are.
^ san woman from southern africa
^ asian woman
both have almost similar physical appearance if you look at the ? structure/epicanthic folds but are not related to each other in any shape or form.
like aint this ? impact on how you ? think ever ...?
Comments
-
I think you and Huruma will hit it off.
-
? say what?
nah u a new poster but i cant let u pass
u must be into national geographics cause u threw a question in there than u dissed me with the pics
why u go to those pics
just asking? -
amenhotepiv wrote: »? say what?
nah u a new poster but i cant let u pass
u must be into national geographics cause u threw a question in there than u dissed me with the pics
why u go to those pics
just asking?
i been lurkin since time so i aint no new poster in the conventional sense. i been readin yalls stories for years. i don't understand what you askin tho -
no....b/c as humans we judge each other on physical appearence, skin color, clothes, or the dialect in which we talk its natural everyone does it and with quick judgements preconcieved notions are sure to follow.
-
Animals in general can be fairly superficial. Combine that with the ability to form opinions/conclusions based on experiences, and appearance-based generalizations can be born.
I think racism and racial prejudice will weaken to an extent, but they will never go away. -
cosign. i do it sometimes but at least i catch myself doing it and always question everything because the divisions people create do not always reflect reality
-
what i am saying is why u put those pics in?
what do they prove?
national geographic does this ? ? all the time
and what the hell is negroids
robots a drug -
there are only 3 races : Negroids, Caucasoids, and Mongoloids.
Skin color is not an indication of race. You can have dark skin and be a Caucasoid or a mongoloid (i.e. Filipinos, Indians, Malaysians, Somalians, etc)
You don't make assumptions based on race either, you make them based on culture.
Race is no longer considered a biological concept (among geneticists, some anthropologists might still believe otherwise).probably still thinks somalians are negroids
Somalis are Black Africans. All indigenous sub-saharan African groups share a common heritage/identity, similar regional struggles etc., if race is a social concept and we arbitrarily decide who is what based on phenotype, there is no reason why any group of dark skinned Africans should not be considered 'Negroids'. Many Somalis/Ethiopians are indistinguishable from Bantu/West Africans. -
ahh ok i learned something today
/bows -
I never stated somalis aren't black, nor africans. But majority of them are caucasoids, as are most north africans.
no race in itself is a meaningless concept because there's literally a million ways you could group human beings. we could group people into races based on height, nose shape, personality .... etc. what makes one criteria more appropriate than the other? -
Interesting thread… I think there will always be small mindedness, but the more we mix, the more they'll go away…
-
yea cosign
the point i was trying to make was that physical appearance is a ? way of trying to find out how people are truly related. 'caucasoid' looking somalis are african. 'caucasoid' is just a loose way of grouping people based on somebody's predetermined criteria. if you go and look at all those caucasoid people's dna you'll find that their not related.
but with that being said humans as a whole are pretty much uniform compared to most species. it's just we come in almost all flavors and looks varie alot and this is what in the end ? with most people. -
I never stated somalis aren't black, nor africans. But majority of them are caucasoids, as are most north africans.
'Caucasoid' is a social classification, not a biological one.but with that being said humans as a whole are pretty much uniform compared to most species.
There is less genetic diversity among modern humans than there is among a group of chimpanzees in a single West African forest. Every human alive is (at least) a 50th cousin. -
Word to Charlemagne of the 8th-9th century.
-
of course caucosoid is a social classification, its a classification of people. Wtf are u trying to say here?
I'm saying that it's a social classification and not a biological one.on a similar subject, a biology teacher once told me that people with blonde hair and blue eyes are probably related to others with those same features as they are recessive genes
If I'm not mistaken, all blue eyed people share an ancestor who lived around 6000 years ago. -
I took basic genetics and I learned that some countries have there own dna code.For example brazilians have there own DNA coding.And the funny thing is that there's all types of colors out this ? .He clearly said there's NO CAUCASIONS IN BRAZIL.He said it's higly impossible even if they came from an all white germain type fam like Bitchen.
He said our DNA is alike.Basically my DNA has more thangs in common with a white brazilian them an african straight outta angola. -
Well wouldn't the Caucasoid traits be replaced by the more dominant ones over the years?
makes sense that hybrids would develop
Thats why i support interracial copulation
That's exacly what my teacher said. -
Racial classification in and of itself is a flawed concept made strictly to generalize social groups....there are no biological grounds for race
There are no real races because there are no pure examples of any ethnic group regardless of phenotype, there is no "negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid", there are only populations who share similar phenotypes, race is more arbitrary and fluid than people, especially undereducated ones, would like you to believe
Every "racial' group in humanity existed in africa prior to human expansion, there is more diversity in african phenotypes than other "races"
Also dark and pale skin is based on an evolutionary trait which helps bring or deflect necessary nutrients from the sun, depending on your descendants proximity to the equator -
fiat_money wrote: »Animals in general can be fairly superficial. Combine that with the ability to form opinions/conclusions based on experiences, and appearance-based generalizations can be born.
I think racism and racial prejudice will weaken to an extent, but they will never go away.
Since world travel is where it is Say the next 3,000 years we may all look alike and we will by then cling to heavier social prejudice relating to family name, nationality, and slight appearance differential. And perhaps Knowledge which may see a sharp increase paralleled by say... a growing proletarian population. -
Kushington wrote: »Racial classification in and of itself is a flawed concept made strictly to generalize social groups....there are no biological grounds for race
There are no real races because there are no pure examples of any ethnic group regardless of phenotype, there is no "negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid", there are only populations who share similar phenotypes, race is more arbitrary and fluid than people, especially undereducated ones, would like you to believe
Every "racial' group in humanity existed in africa prior to human expansion, there is more diversity in african phenotypes than other "races"
Also dark and pale skin is based on an evolutionary trait which helps bring or deflect necessary nutrients from the sun, depending on your descendants proximity to the equator
Took a few to the head here but.... Are you saying: that all racial classifications of in other words meaningless and only serve better the need of diversification for public scurtiny, rather than science that furthers dna study? -
Only if your accounted worthy, through faith in Jesus Christ, will one be able to joy in the everlasting pleasures of a world free from sin.
Do you know Him today? -
Took a few to the head here but.... Are you saying: that all racial classifications of in other words meaningless and only serve better the need of diversification for public scurtiny, rather than science that furthers dna study?
Race is a social concept that europeans came up with to define and classify the different groups they encountered throughout the world
DNA is real, but there are more genetic differences WITHIN "racial" groups than BETWEEN them -
of course caucosoid is a social classification, its a classification of people. Wtf are u trying to say here?
there are no biological grounds for race
In your theory(or the bio teacher who's information youre regurgitating), you could pick any random trait and attribute that to a race.
Height, weight, foot size, hand size, ear length or any other visible trait could then possibly be used to determine "race", if something as arbitrary as ? features or skin color does -
Kushington wrote: »there are no biological grounds for race
In your theory(or the bio teacher who's information youre regurgitating), you could pick any random trait and attribute that to a race.
Height, weight, foot size, hand size, ear length or any other visible trait could then possibly be used to determine "race", if something as arbitrary as ? features or skin color does
cosign ... -
Kushington wrote: »Racial classification in and of itself is a flawed concept made strictly to generalize social groups....there are no biological grounds for race
There are no real races because there are no pure examples of any ethnic group regardless of phenotype, there is no "negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid", there are only populations who share similar phenotypes, race is more arbitrary and fluid than people, especially undereducated ones, would like you to believe
Every "racial' group in humanity existed in africa prior to human expansion, there is more diversity in african phenotypes than other "races"
Also dark and pale skin is based on an evolutionary trait which helps bring or deflect necessary nutrients from the sun, depending on your descendants proximity to the equator
Good post....................
