This is something that people don't usually realise. A lot of the terms that are still used originated in the 18th century 'science' of racial classification (from which a lot of the Nazi's ideas came). Although the meanings of these terms has changed slightly, our understanding of the world and human origins means that we should really have a better system by now. Edit: that's not to say that the image posted by Shameless isn't broadly accurate.
My understanding of the traditional classification of race is very muddy. Th common ancestor from East Africa theory has been revised to several ancestral groups in different parts of Africa who 'mixed' over time - a very long time ...then the outmigration from African resulted in mixing with other hominids such as Neanderthal. Hence we get Mandarin Aboriginal Capoid and so on who appear visibly distinct yet all carry the core ancestral genes and we are very similar genetically. Within any of these human groups there exists a 10-15% variation in skin colour and natural selection favoured darker skinned people in Africa as a protection from the sun
I think it's even more complicated than that to be honest. I studied it at undergraduate level as various modules in a wider archaeology course, so feel like I have a reasonable grasp of the basics of it. Since then though, new theories have been developed, new potential human ancestors have been identified, new parallel groups to go alongside the Neanderthals, such as the Denisovans, have been identified, so I've lost touch with it. The basic fact that we're all pretty much the same, apart from some minor changes in appearance seems to hold true throughout though.
Would it be accurate to suggest that variations in skin colour are due to environmental stresses and influences or is that too speculative in the Scientific sense, or even a little too sweeping and wholesale?
I think it is to some extent, but you also have to consider the presence of dominant genes within particular groups of people in particular locations. Certainly, I think that certain characteristics may have been beneficial to people dependant on their location but my understanding is that it's a bit more complicated than that. I believe they've shown that some individuals of late Palaeolithic or early Neolithic date living in the British Isles had dark hair and skin and blue eyes.
Surely the salient detail here is that physical attributes and visible distinction belonging to people of the earth's regions are largely superficial,in that there is next to no genetic difference between one human and another
Yes, indeed. I have always had the impression that the appearance of different groups of people is just superficial. The real difference between groups of people is cultural practice which is fluid, changes all the time, and has nothing to do with physical appearance. I don't know if you saw it, but I got involved in a debate on here a while ago about the existence of Atlantis. This is a theory that would get laughed out of any academic institution in the world because its roots lie in the 18th/18th century idea that 'non-Europeans' were incapable of complex civilisation. You only have to look at places like Great Zimbabwe, the Inca and Maya cities of central America, and a variety of other sites around the world to see that that is ridiculous. People are people, no matter what, and will build complex structures and complex systems of trade, communication, and social hierarchy. Go anywhere in the world and you can see it, irrespective of what the people look like.
I actually have a bit of a problem where people being dealt with by us are required to declare their ethnicity. The thing is it’s self declared. So if I ever get myself arrested, being a white Northern European, I’m going to self declare my ethnicity as Chinese.
Noone absolutely fits to a racial stereotype, and stereotyping is often lazy and ignorant. For example, Africans are good at long distant running. Actually no, not particularly, but Kenya have a good record. Kenyans are good at long distant running? Actually no, just a very tiny area produces an incredible amount of good runners. Everyone is unique, even when apparently fitting a stereotype. As for 'allowing' individuals to 'hide' behind a stereotype. Not sure anyone is in a position to allow, but most people, no matter how strong and individual, have hidden behind a stereotype. Just look at football fans.
@Shameless Racist? https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/of...na-onasanya-over-monkey-mascot-ng-b881581482z
I dont believe in stereotypes. I just take people as they are. Do people willingly hide behind them? Possibly. Do stereotypes make things harder for those who do not conform? I think so. Some people seem to have set ideas as to how certain races/nationalities should/will behave. It is what it is. This is a very tolerant country though, in general, and not something I've picked up on.
I'm one of those people when speaking generally tbh. I worked, as security, on a massive holiday site in Antibes that held around 5,000 people. We had permanent bungalows as second homes, static caravans for owners/rentals, spaces for touring camper vans & caravans plus hundreds of plots for tents. There was a couple of bars, restaurant, disco, etc. We'd have people, of multiple nationalities, there and the differences/similarities were profound. As security, for what was a volatile town fuelled with alcohol, we'd have to be on our game to keep order. You could virtually guarantee how each nationality would behave. The best we're the ordered and quiet Swiss, the Scandinavians, Dutch. The worst were the English, North Africans, French. I could categorise every nation tbh, people are ridiculously predictable.
I should have made it clear that I was thinking of employment when I raised the issue and must apologise for not doing that. Nobody is disputing that the majority of racial stereotypes (or stereotypes of any kind) are normally negative so my question was "when someone doesn't fit the stereotype can they gain a positive advantage from that?" For example, let's imagine that you receive a job application from someone of Jamaican descent (with the typical stereotype being of a scruffy, lazy, ganga smoking, dreadlocked, patois speaking individual) who you only invite for interview because of your company's equal opportunity policy. When he arrives, however, he turns up immaculately groomed/suited & booted speaking the Queen's English. Does he gain an immediate advantage over another applicants who are also immaculately groomed/suited & booted speaking the Queen's English because you were (possibly subconsciously) measuring him against the stereotype rather than the criteria you used for the rest, who just appeared/spoke as you expected them to (another stereotype)?
I find it interesting that those who were the first to accuse other posters of racism (directly or indirectly) have seemingly lost their ability to type a reply/opinion! @Shameless
And a very good morning to you sir And point of order: At no point in this entire thread have I accused anyone of racism. I have been accused of racism which is such nonsense that it doesn't even merit a reply
