Silk here: I was sent this & find it interesting? Whatcha think?
[Anthropoid - member of primate suborder anthropoidea, including monkeys, apes & "HUMAN BEINGS!" (so get off your high horse cousin to a monkey!)
From: Ugur Altinbas
From Q.T: This post is naive & littered with wishful thinking & sounds
exactly like something someone from a "minority" group would "hope" was true
but it ain't! That most anthropologists & biologists consider race invalid is simply not
true! There is nothing artificial about dividing people in to categories. It
may be impossible for you to draw the line between black & white but it sure
isn't for most people who have half way decent vision! This is not a remark
as to "quality" however if someone can't distinguish between a Negro from
Ghana & a Caucasian from Norway or a Mongolid from China!!!! Then if this they can not do they had better go have their eyes examined. Next thing they'll be telling us is that there is no difference between a Doberman & a Collie or a Parrot & a hummingbird or a Cod from a gold fish! {main groups & sub groups}
Ugur: Most dogs are mutts!
Q. T : This is simply not true. While there may be no creature that bears a 1 to
1 resemblance with their original ancestor they have thus evolved today to what they are & in this there are categories & definite distinctions! A Negro & a Caucasian & a Mongolid belong to the human race however within that group they belong to a sub-group & that is either Negroid, Caucasian or Mongoloid & within that group they belong to another sub
group - short or tall, male or female & within that group they belong to another sub group - able to grasp & assimiliate new information "quickly or slowly" [this often refered to as Intelligence & the measure of it] & the sub grouping goes on & on.... Some belong to a sub group who have an affinity for sickle cel anemia (negroes), others with an affinity for Tuberculosis (american Indians) others have an affinity for cancer ect.ect. I belong to a brown race & can quite frankly tell you that we have a very low acumen as concerns mathmatics & abstract concepts, the same is true as concerns negros however as concerns caucasians & mongolids they excell in this area. This is a verifiable fact, has nothing to do with available education it is just something innate in their respective makeups! While Mongoloids are certainly more crafty & precise than the other 2 races they are not inherently agressive & meglomaniatical as are the caucasians thus the caucasian race dominates the world. The white man goes to africa & takes the blacks against their will. The blacks outnumberd the whites but did not have the "innate something" to get organized & fight back & overcome the whites & thus were lead off like sheep! the white man came to north america & was met by a group (indians) who would fight to the death (unlike the blacks) before being taken as slave,[never did become slaves] why? It was in their innate make up to resist! Two similiar situations two different reactions! The white man went to vietnam & was met by a group who would fight to the death before being taken (not unlike the indians but unlike the blacks) why? It was in their blueprint! INNATE! Sure one can make all kinds of excuses but facts are facts! Of course some do not base their opinions on facts if the facts are distasteful, N' est-ce pas?
Here I am not saying one race is "superior" than another I'm simply stating facts. An Eagle can soar higher than a Sparrow - Fact. A Greyhound can run faster than a poodle - Fact. A Salmon can swim up stream in a phenomenal feat, a Bass cannot - fact. different sub - groups of the same main groups possess varying traits, the human is no different! If mankind all began from a common ancestor & then branched out why have some races excelled & others not? [ version of excell is subjective] Why? Because thats the way it is! Some races are quite simply not as ambitious (in certain respects) as others! Why do Blacks excel in sports? In the "agility" department they excel! How is it the Aborigines can survive in the "outback"? Why do jews as a percentage of their total numbers have a higher % of doctors & dentists among them than do other races? The Caucasian race is very adept at "dividing & conquering" & are demonstrably more agressive than other races. They as a sub group of the human race have evolved (or their original blueprint contains) this ability or rather trait. It is quite simple, some sub groups can do certain things others emanating from the same main group cannot! Whats the problem? While we may all be born equal we sure as hell are not the same! While equality may be a right there's no power on earth that can make it a fact which enjoys existence! The big fish swallows the little fish & by big this is not to indicate size but rather temperment. The chinese are "bigger" (in numbers) but the Caucasians are, while smaller in numbers, bigger in temperment, thus the caucasians
rule the roost (planet)???????????????
[This Q.T. is t odds with]
From Ugur:
> how do we classify people into descent groups?
>
>
>
> OK, I know the whole "race" thing has died down... but I am surprised that
> no one has brought up the Vitamin D hypothesis... so please feel
> free to ignore this if you're sick of the issue.
>
> "Race" is considered invalid by MOST anthropologists/biologists because it
> divides people into different categories that are completely artificial. No
> one is "white" like a sheet of paper or "black" like an olive... Skin color
> is an example of continuous variation that ranges from very light peach to
> very dark brown, with
> a practically infinite number of shades in between. It's impossible to draw
> the line between "black" and "white," which is why the Brits had to
> institute the Paper Bag Test for "mixed" people in theircolonies.
>
>
>
>
> > >I find it interesting that breeds of dogs were used as an example
> > >of "race" precisely because it is a very artificial situation.
> > >A "Chihuahua" is a "Chihuahua" because we have determined the
> > >characteristics that make it so, and because we have carefully
> > >controlled who the dog has bred with. But most dogs are mutts.
> > >
> > >So are most people. You might be able to say, "That one looks mostly
> > >German Shepherd" or "does she have a little bit of Chow?" but you
> > >certainly can't guarantee anything approaching "ethnic purity."
> > >
> > >That said, there certainly is a difference in appearance between
> > >myself (of dubious European ancestry) and my neighbor Akura (from
> > >Kenya).
> > >
> > >Skin color, as I understand it, is based on three pigments: melanin,
> > >keratin, and hemoglobin. Melanin is the primary pigment, and
> > >determines the darkness/lightness of our skin.
> > >
> > >If you are an O of A (and I am), it would make sense that the first
> > >humans would have had dark skin, as they lived near the equator.
> > >Just like the indigenous Africans/Australians/Polynesians today, this
> > >would protect them from sunburn and melanoma. Melanin blocks UV rays.
> > >Most people understand this.
> > >
> > >But why would the amount of melanin present in the skin decrease as
> > >people migrate away from the equator? The Vitamin D hypothesis may
> > >provide an answer. Vitamin D is a vital vitamin for the absorption
> > >of calcium. Without it, rickets, osteoporosis, etc. can develop.
> > >Before the advent of fortified milk, our primary source of Vitamin D
> > >was sunlight. Near the equator, getting enough sun was not a
> > >problem. It's strong year-round. But as people migrated north, and
> > >the amount of sun lessened, Vitamin D deficiencies probably became
> > >more common. And it was probably more prevalent in those with darker
> > >skin. Therefore, those with lighter skin would have been more likely
> > >to live, to pass their traits on... classic natural selection.
> > >
> > >Anyway, this is just a hypothesis... and it's still pretty heavily
> > >debated. But it makes a lot of sense to me.
> > >
> > >Hope this helps....
> > >
> > >Heather
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Dec 20 2000 - 16:12:07 EST