The Races of Europe

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Luckily, almost no one cares what you mind or dont mind

and even fewer care about you commies.

 

[scherbchen]

Well, because ethnicity is a self-identification that does not necessarily have to do with birthright. Race appeals to an apparent inherent birthright biological variation that makes one significantly different enough for a classification.

thank you, I would have to agree.

 

[Winner]

My question to you; are there distinct native races to Europe, or is it just difference in one overall white race?

Please, keep this civil.

They're more like sub-races of the White race. Everybody knows that Scandinavians are much more likely to have fair hair and blue eyes, that Irish often have red hair, that Slavs tend to have round faces, that Southerners are a bit darker etc.

They still belong to what we used to call the "White race", which is kinda politically incorrect these days.

 

[Winner]

Along that same line.

Are the neanderthals the ancestors to homo sapiens or we did we develop independently?

There is no solid proof of interbreeding between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Some people believe that certain traits unique for the White race were inherited from Neanderthals (fair or red hair, lack of pigment in general).

 

[JZ_UK]

Luckily, almost no one cares what you mind or dont mind

*receives the JZ seal of approval*


On a rather lexical point... you can use ethnicity in all the situations you'd use race, but not vice-versa... and ethnicity is without the baggage of the word race...

 

[ParadigmShifter]

; Mongoloid he was a mongoloid
Happier than you and me
Mongoloid he was a mongoloid
And it determined what he could see
Mongoloid he was a mongoloid
One chromosome too many
Mongoloid he was a mongoloid
And it determined what he could see
And he wore a hat
And he had a job
And he brought home the bacon
So that no one knew
Mongoloid he was a mongoloid
His friends were unaware
Mongoloid he was a mongoloid
Nobody even cared

Mark E. Smith and The Fall?

You probably want to watch this if you haven't seen it already...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBUiPs1PxKo

 

[RedRalph]

*receives the JZ seal of approval*


On a rather lexical point... you can use ethnicity in all the situations you'd use race, but not vice-versa... and ethnicity is without the baggage of the word race...

Personally, I have no problems with the word race. My niece is half jamaican, I consider her mixed-race, I think shes half different race to me. but its an arbitrary definition, its just for simple categorisation. My mother is (religiously) Jewish, her husband is an american Jew. to me, him being american is as much a difference as being Jewish. It makes no difference. Its just a categorisation using fairly arbitrary definition, same way you can categorise 5 people as having "brown hair" and all 5 might have completely different shades of hair

 

[angeleyes]

...... its an arbitrary definition, its just for simple categorisation. ......... It makes no difference. Its just a categorisation using fairly arbitrary definition........

so why do you use the word race if its all arbitrary and only categorisation

 

[RedRalph]

so why do you use the word race if its all arbitrary and only categorisation

Because its useful for doing just that! Its a lot easier to say "Germanic" than the peoples of northern europe in general, and specifically Norway, Germany, Holland, Denmark etc or whatever proper definition you may use. its simply cutting down the amount of words you use

 

[holy king]

strange OP, strange thread...
didnt we just have a similar discussion?

 

[Bill3000]

It's also a bit silly. For example, the ancestors of the modern-day greeks today are far more likely to have a dominating slavonic component from the tribes that migrated there and later identified and assimiliated to the Greek ethnicity rather than the descendants of the ancient Greeks themselves; Greece proper used to be a backwater. Turks in Turkey are a mix of all the various Anatolian peoples that lived there, including a strain from the migration of the Turkic peoples from Turkestan, as well as people in the Balkans, and yeah, that even includes the Greeks, Kurds, and Armenians that have a strong aminosity with them. You can't say that the Turks superificially look like they came from Central Asia today. French can't be considered the pure descendents of the Gauls or Franks, either. Germans arn't solely the descendents of the non-Frankish tribes; there's plenty of descendents of germanized Slavs and Balts, too. Poles arn't just the descendents of the polish tribes of the Mazurians, Polans, Warmiaks, Pomeranians, Masovians and the like, but various Ruthenian and baltic peoples as well.

So there's little point in talking about ancestry - it's a matter of identification.

Besides, there's still problems with classification. It's one thing if there is a trait being distributed differently through populations; it's another thing altogether to see if there is a significant difference in enoguh traits to make a classificatino semantically meaningful. A hasty analogy would be language; there's always the significant danger of false cognates, and hypothetical families are often treated with suspicion. How can you really tell that the Armenian language is significantly close enough to the Greek and Phyrigian to make a Greco-Armenian set, as opposed to a Greco-Armenian-Indo-Iranian set, for example? It's stuff like that which makes classification of traits nothing more than a mere useless social construct.

 

[JZ_UK]

strange OP, strange thread...
didnt we just have a similar discussion?

We did, it got closed, this subverts that

 

[GoodSarmatian]

The map in the OP shows Austria-Hungary , we really shouldn't take this stuff seriously.

 

[warpus]

They're more like sub-races of the White race. Everybody knows that Scandinavians are much more likely to have fair hair and blue eyes, that Irish often have red hair, that Slavs tend to have round faces, that Southerners are a bit darker etc.

They still belong to what we used to call the "White race", which is kinda politically incorrect these days.

Well, there is no such thing.

Are the Portugese members of the "white race"? Spanish? Italians? Greeks? Hungarians? Bulgarians?

 

[Bill3000]

I'm kind of confused as to why the celtic peoples are classified as mediterranean...

Especially since they're genetically close to the English.

 

[warpus]

I'm kind of confused as to why the celtic peoples are classified as mediterranean...

Especially since they're genetically close to the English.

I don't know either, but they're not. English people are Germanic. Celts aren't.

 

[Bill3000]

I don't know either, but they're not. English people are Germanic. Celts aren't.

You're confusing language with ancestry. Jury's out on whether or not it was assimilation or displacement, or both, or depending on the area.

 

[Verbose]

Well, there is no such thing.

Are the Portugese members of the "white race"? Spanish? Italians? Greeks? Hungarians? Bulgarians?

Well, Thomas Huxley at the 1868 Congrès International d'Anthropologie et d'Archeologie Préhistorique (CIAAP) in Norwich/London, referred all these people to the "Alluforian race", which according to him stretched from Australia all the way up to southern France.

This prompted the neurologist/physical anthropologist Paul Broca (founder of the Paris École d'anthropologie which trained generations of physical anthropologists, including the Czech-American Ales Hrdlicka of the Smithsonian), a south Frenchman himself, to rise and ask Huxley if he was to be considered an "Alluforian"? Huxley didn't really reply.

Personally, to me Huxley's "Alluforians" make as much sense as anything else.

I've got a Swedish school atlas from 1930 in my bookshelf showing the "White Race" stretching all through eastern Africa down to and including Swaziland. Of course the authors of that atlas did put quotation marks around "White Race" themselves. That also makes as much sense to me as other delinieations of the concept.

Between them - Huxley at that congress, grappling with human classification, and the 1930's atlas - they nicely sum up the arbitrariness of racial classification.

 

[Norseone]

You're confusing language with ancestry. Jury's out on whether or not it was assimilation or displacement, or both, or depending on the area.

Actually there was a recent genetic survey done reported in the BBC a year or so ago that said most english people were genetically German.

 

[classical_hero]

There are ethnicities in Europe, not races.

I can, for instance, notice a difference in the appearance of a Swedish person and say a German person, likewise for an Irish.

That is because if you isolate a gene pool then you will only get variations amongst that Gene pool. You can generally tell differences between blacks from different countries. Blacks from America look slighly different from a black in South Africa for example. All we are talking abut is genetic variety, no more no less.