Do folks in Europe have their own distinguish and unique race?

Goga

Goga

Banned
Messages
2,651
Reaction score
152
Points
0
Y-DNA haplogroup
R1a*
mtDNA haplogroup
HV1b2
Is it possible that Europoid and Caucasoid are 2 different species? The true is that there're difference between West Asians (real Caucasians) and Europeans.

I mean according to me it's possible that you can call native (Northwest) Europeans Europoids (European) and not Caucasoid (West Asian/Caucasians) at all. People in Southeast Europe are of course also a little bit mixed with Caucasoid (West Asian) race.

Btw: as a Kurd I do consider my ethnicity Kurdish, meta ethnicity as Hurro-Aryan (Aryan/Iranic) and my race as Caucasian (Caucasoid) one, since my race is directly linked to that area.

This is a serious question. I'm not trying to insult anybody.
 
Last edited:
My point is why do scientists consider Europeans Caucasoid and not just Europoid when they have nothing to do with the Caucasus?
 
Since for example Georgia is at 41,43 N of latitudes, the same as central italy rome, northern spain, montenegro, and sofia, it's logical people there have a similar phenotype in pigmentation to those people, and don't look alien in southern europe; people there have adapted to the same climate.

this is the same thing as negrito people who are very genetically distand from subsaharian africans, but in the outside they look the same because they have adapted to similar climate.

So all caucasians have a very familiar look with soutehrn europeans
 
Caucasoid is a larger racial grouping because it represents the phenotypical similarities between the various peoples categorized under it. As a forensic anthropologist can attest, you can tell if someone is a caucasoid just from the skull. You cannot, however, tell if he is white, isolated European (Basques and Etruscans), Jewish, Arabic, Phonecian, et cetera, just from his skull.

They are called Caucasoid because it is assumed, anthropologically, that they emerged tens of thousands of years ago in the area of the Caucacus. As far as I know, there is no current scientific evidence that disproves this.

To note: Without the term "Caucasoid" it would be impossible to categorize the relationship between whites and semites.
 
@ julia90 Thank you for your reply.

JFWR said:
Caucasoid is a larger racial grouping because it represents the phenotypical similarities between the various peoples categorized under it. As a forensic anthropologist can attest, you can tell if someone is a caucasoid just from the skull. You cannot, however, tell if he is white, isolated European (Basques and Etruscans), Jewish, Arabic, Phonecian, et cetera, just from his skull.

They are called Caucasoid because it is assumed, anthropologically, that they emerged tens of thousands of years ago in the area of the Caucacus. As far as I know, there is no current scientific evidence that disproves this.

To note: Without the term "Caucasoid" it would be impossible to categorize the relationship between whites and semites.
Click to expand...
There's a relationship between all races on earth. This doesn't make all races on earth 1 race, let say Caucasoid. Of course there're lots of scientists that say that there're no races but 1 human race. But I doubt that.

According to me there're many races and many sub races, even in Europe.

There're also relationships between Caucasoid and Mongoloid races, but that doesn't make them the same.

At one point in history Homosapien ancestors of Mongoloids and Caucasoids also lived together, but that doesn't make them the same.

This is what I think. The earth was not only populated by 1 humanoid species, the Homosapiens, but by many different species, unique to their region. African Homosapiens mixed with African species, European Homosapiens mixed with European species. Caucasian Homosapiens mixed with Caucasian species. East Asian Homospaiens mixed with unique Asian species.
 
Also of course there's a lot overlapping and race mixing between different races due to migrations.

Think only about Caucasoid or maybe even Mediterraneanoid Neolithic farmers that migrated into Europe.

Or the Huns and other Turko-Mongoloid folks that settle in Central and Eastern Europe.
Or the Caucasoid Etruscans (ancestors of the ancient Romans) that settled in Northern Italy or even the Caucasoid proto-Indo-Europeans that gave Indo-European languages to Europoids. Etc etc..
 
Goga said:
@ julia90 Thank you for your reply.


There's a relationship between all races on earth. This doesn't make all races on earth 1 race, let say Caucasoid. Of course there're lots of scientists that say that there're no races but 1 human race. But I doubt that.

According to me there're many races and many sub races, even in Europe.

There're also relationships between Caucasoid and Mongoloid races, but that doesn't make them the same.

At one point in history Homosapien ancestors of Mongoloids and Caucasoids also lived together, but that doesn't make them the same.

This is what I think. The earth was not only populated by 1 humanoid species, the Homosapiens, but by many different species, unique to their region. African Homosapiens mixed with African species, European Homosapiens mixed with European species. Caucasian Homosapiens mixed with Caucasian species. East Asian Homospaiens mixed with unique Asian species.
Click to expand...

Goga said:
Also of course there's a lot overlapping and race mixing between different races due to migrations.

Think only about Caucasoid or maybe even Mediterraneanoid Neolithic farmers that migrated into Europe.

Or the Huns and other Turko-Mongoloid folks that settle in Central and Eastern Europe.
Or the Caucasoid Etruscans (ancestors of the ancient Romans) that settled in Northern Italy or even the Caucasoid proto-Indo-Europeans that gave Indo-European languages to Europoids. Etc etc..
Click to expand...

Goga, I wasn't implying that the relationships between the races were to make one super race (that's anthropologically absurd no matter what the Standard Social Sciences Paradigm wants to shove down our throats) but that Caucasoid is a larger racial grouping that is anthropologically justified to speak to. If you want, we can call Causaoid the race, and Indo-European, Semite, European Isolate, et cetera, as sub-races of the Caucasoid race. Either works.

You would be wrong to speak of different species, though. Sub-species could MAYBE be justified, but that is what we have the classification of "race" for.
 
just my opinion:
even among animals they are no true race:
what is relevant is the specie: the faculty to reproduce with the help of an opposite sex mate -
what we find is raciation, a natural phenomenon based on genetic mutations and the selection of these mutations under certain conditions: this selection can have a higher or lower degree according to environmental pressure, isolation or at the contrary contacts maintained (and the population size) producing more or less differentiated groups (between them) AND more or less homogenous (within them) -
so human beings "suffered" the same conditions as the animals at first stages (raciation) but our present human stock seams being extracted for the most from a small enough population '"race" then? why not?) that evolved at different times on the way to raciation too, but keep having some contacts between its differents subsets, that led to less differentiated "branches" compared to the animals world. saying there are or there are not different races among mankind is a unanswerable question I believe...
I should say human beings are grouped or WAS grouped in "imparfect races" (different from the notion of "specy") - even plants could by classed as "races" or not "races"...
concerning mankind, we can see some great enough processes of differentiation leading to some concept of 'caucasoid', 'negroid' or 'mongoloid' types, even if the frontiers are very less clear than among animals "races"...
the objection that some "white" man could be closer to a "black" or "yellow" man that to another "white man" concerning some gene (HLA: blood, body tissu) is not a very available one: we share a lot of genes with other species from the pig to the fly, why not some fishes, but e are not pigs nor flies... some autosomals mutations on some loci can be very old and lead to a heterogneous population concerning these loci even if ONE and UNIQUE "race" for other aspects -
let's say locus A >> mutation >> A1, A2
a small subset of population go away with these alleles A1, A2
with time other mutations occur on B,C,D,E [...]X, Y, Z alleles with selection giving way to a new "race" (group) concerning these last alleles, but the heterogeneity of A could remain even if the percentages could vary - the members of the different subsets of the previous population can evolve very far one from another concerning other genes and keep nevertheless the A1 and A2 variants - if the A gene is not submitted to strong selection, it can keep is variants in a sufficient size population: but as a whole we see that with time, the human groups tend to homogenize themselves slowly, loosing some of the old genes they shared between them, at different speeds - but some heterozygotic conditions for some genes can (it seams almost proved) provide some advantage for health and help ot conserve variance (diversity?) -
all the way, human groups seam having crossed one together often enough when it was possible, exchanging genes that from a ONE group statute got a SEVERAL groups statute, more when they was positive under pressure, either in an homozygotic or in an heterozygotic position -
saying that there are several species among human beings is stupid - saying it is not possible to see more or less distance between big human groups and even between some subgroups is as stupid, but sure there is no barreer at all -
in short: we surely undewent strong processes of raciation but after that we took the way of DEraciation -
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 3721 times.

Back
Top