Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have to also be weary of people that like to use the "race industry" to explain everything. Thomas Sowell says it best in this video between the minutes 6:47 and 8:33.
The people that love the "race industry" will be talking about racism even when its done and over. There are quite a few people like that in this forum and they always appear in this type of threads, usually to degrade Latin American countries in trying to present them as much more racist than they really are. Be careful to be fooled by them.
Maybe, but some societies that have been mixing for centuries, such as Dominican Republic, produces highly varied looking people. Even though most are mixed more or less to the same degree, you wouldn't know it by looking at them.
Random Dominicans approached in the Dominican Republic:
Its usually in societies that don't have much racial mixture where you will see a uniform mass of people.
One example would be Ivory Coast, a country in western Africa where most people are blacks.
Another example would be Russia where most people are white.
Or China.
Not really. That is simply the most widely used 'theory' which was invented by Wiener I think in the early 1900's. There are other 'theories' out there such as one invented by a guy named Otenberg (I only remember his last name) and he split humanity into six major groups (European, Intermediates, Hunano, Manchu, African and Sub-Asiatic, and American Pacific.) Alexander Wiener was another scientist that invented his own racial classification system that included three groups (Caucasians, Negroid, and Mongoloid) and this is the one that was adopted by many people. What many people don't know is that his classification was originally based on blood types based on whether a person has Rh or not and other details. There were other inventions by other scientists but I don't remember them.
There are a few studies that show that even in African tribes that haven't had contact with Europeans there is a tendency towards liking the lighter skin individuals in the group, and in many of these tribes the difference in skin tone is not that great. Yet the men prefer to pair up with the women that are slightly lighter. If that's the case in pre-modern societies with limited to no contact with modern society, then how do we know people aren't predispose towards that.
We are now learning that people (or entire societies) that go through traumatic experience tend to become genetically predisposed to dislike whomever (or whatever society) abused them. (Trauma can be inherited from parents - Telegraph)
If that's possible through the genes, then basically anything else is too.
Actually they do know that, how else do you think the census data marks blacks in double digits?
Most people down there are mixed and mixed people for the most part don't identify as one of their ancestries.
For example, in South Africa mulattoes (they call themselves coloureds) don't see themselves as black either, because they know they are mixed. Actually, they are facing some problems down there precisely because they are not black:
You should be careful not to make the mistake of thinking that most places outside the USA pretend that mixed people are black, because you will reach erroneous conclusions about many countries. Cape Verde is another country with a mulatto majority that doesn't identify as black, similar to the DR. In many other countries there are significant mulatto minorities that don't identify as black either.
If anything, most people tend to be baffled at the US system. From time to time even US Americans say the obvious:
But at other times, some mixed race US Americans are in denial that they are mixed. You can't really blame them though, because its U.S. society that has forced them to see themselves as something they are only partially and not as everything that they really are.
Hence the reason why race is a social construct and even in what look like homogeneous societies, you may find people with some mixture, even if it is distant. An example that may come to mind are the Ainu of Japan. So, you have to be careful even when looking those types of societies/countries that people think are strictly homogeneous.
You also have to look at socio-economic disparities between different groups in Latin America, which does occur and with race as a factor.
Coloureds also are similar to what occurred in Brazil and other Latin American countries in terms of Dutch, German, French Huguenot and British men going alone to South Africa and Namibia, which in turn limited their choice of mates. Then, when you add in Apartheid, of course they will be viewed as a buffer group due to mixture and it keeps them from being at the lowest level in the caste system, even they are limited to a middle status. So, in general, they had it a little bit better than people largely of or wholly of a Black background, but weren't viewed on the same level as Whites as well. It may be and most likely is more complex than that as well.
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 07-11-2014 at 07:34 PM..
I have been watching the World Cup and have noted that the locals are very much like Americans in a big city. It seems every ethnicity is represented and there is a lot of racial bends.
Is racial bending the way of the future?
Will racial blending finally end racism in the world?
Which country is ahead in racial blending? Brazil or the USA?
Racial blending has been going on in the Southern Europe, North Africa, Middle East for 1000s of years
Just read about "The Silk Road"
Why do you think Indian people come in all colors and shape?
Racial blending has been going on in the Southern Europe, North Africa, Middle East for 1000s of years
Just read about "The Silk Road"
Why do you think Indian people come in all colors and shape?
Sure, but a few thousand years is very little.
The early humans probably go back to a couple of million years. Mixing for a couple thousand years is not much.
Have you ever mix sand, concrete and water with a shovel? At the onset the mix is very inhomogeneous with more sand in one side and little concrete in others areas. But, if you keep mixing for another ten minutes or so the mixture of concrete, sand, and water becomes homogeneous.
The mating of different groups for a few hundred years or even a couple thousand years is not enough to create an even blend. So folks end up being a 1/4 that, and 1/8 the other, a 1/2 yellow and so forth. That is a very inhomogeneous mixture.
But, I agree, mixing is obvious in the transition zones where you have transition looking people like the Eastern Europeans and the Turks.
Hence the reason why race is a social construct and even in what look like homogeneous societies, you may find people with some mixture, even if it is distant. An example that may come to mind are the Ainu of Japan. So, you have to be careful even when looking those types of societies/countries that people think are strictly homogeneous.
You also have to look at socio-economic disparities between different groups in Latin America, which does occur and with race as a factor.
Coloureds also are similar to what occurred in Brazil and other Latin American countries in terms of Dutch, German, French Huguenot and British men going alone to South Africa and Namibia, which in turn limited their choice of mates. Then, when you add in Apartheid, of course they will be viewed as a buffer group due to mixture and it keeps them from being at the lowest level in the caste system, even they are limited to a middle status. So, in general, they had it a little bit better than people largely of or wholly of a Black background, but weren't viewed on the same level as Whites as well. It may be and most likely is more complex than that as well.
Great post!
However, if you put two different distinct homogeneous groups together and allow them to mate you get a rough mixture that is very inhomogeneous. However, if these groups are allowed to inbreed for a very long long time eventually the traits become uniformly distributed among all members and homogeneity is reached again.
The early humans probably go back to a couple of million years. Mixing for a couple thousand years is not much.
Have you ever mix sand, concrete and water with a shovel? At the onset the mix is very inhomogeneous with more sand in one side and little concrete in others areas. But, if you keep mixing for another ten minutes or so the mixture of concrete, sand, and water becomes homogeneous.
The mating of different groups for a few hundred years or even a couple thousand years is not enough to create an even blend. So folks end up being a 1/4 that, and 1/8 the other, a 1/2 yellow and so forth. That is a very inhomogeneous mixture.
But, I agree, mixing is obvious in the transition zones where you have transition looking people like the Eastern Europeans and the Turks.
The day everybody is the same color... people are gonna start saying that people with blue eyes and people with brown eyes are different races and people with curly hair and people with straight hair are different races.
People that want to "divide" will always find some way to say that people are different.
Transition zone?
Most Iranians look Italian to me and there's also a lot of black people in Saudi Arabia since is right next to Sudan
Most Iranians look Italian to me and there's also a lot of black people in Saudi Arabia since is right next to Sudan
Don't mean to hijack this thread but Black people in Saudi Arabia are treated like dirt. They only abolished slavery in 1962 and just like women in Saudi are forbidden from taking certain occupations, Blacks are also banned from certain occupations:
“The Saudi monarchy bans blacks from many jobs including diplomats, judges, security officers, ministers, mayors, senior clerics, and heads of government departments,” the institute said on Sept. 16. “The Saudi Foreign Ministry bans blacks from all diplomatic positions. That’s why none of you have met a Saudi black diplomat before.”
Also, countries like Saudi do not allow children born there to become citizens- So, you have a lot of Indians, Pakistanis, Somalians, Sudanese who were born in these countries, grew up there but are not citizens.
I have a friend whose parents are from Sudan- He was born in Abu Dhabi, UAE. He lived there his entire life, speaks perfect Gulf Arabic. He showed me his UAE Drivers License, it shows his country of origin as Sudan. Even though he is Emirati and grew up there, he is not considered one of them.
There are some blacks who are well established in the UAE, Saudi, Qatar but these are most people whose parents immigrated to these countries like centuries ago- it takes a ridiculous amount of time for an immigrant to be accepted in these societies as one of them since they are still tribal societies.
Last edited by Repubocrat; 07-12-2014 at 03:50 AM..
I have been watching the World Cup and have noted that the locals are very much like Americans in a big city. It seems every ethnicity is represented and there is a lot of racial bends.
Is racial bending the way of the future?
Will racial blending finally end racism in the world?
Which country is ahead in racial blending? Brazil or the USA?
I do think that if we were all a nice mocha color there would be less racism and discrimination in the world. I must confess I find the mulatta women of Brazil among the most beautiful in the world. I hope that is not taken as an offensive term -- my understanding is that it refers to someone who has a blend of African, white and possibly native Indian blood. You see more of this blending in Brazil than anywhere I can think of. Nevertheless, unfortunately, it will not eliminate ethnic rivalries which are often among the most violent conflicts in the world, and these often happen among peoples of the same race.
However, if you put two different distinct homogeneous groups together and allow them to mate you get a rough mixture that is very inhomogeneous. However, if these groups are allowed to inbreed for a very long long time eventually the traits become uniformly distributed among all members and homogeneity is reached again.
India is one of the most ancient societies in the world. There has been mixing going on for THOUSANDS of years, and yet it is one of the most varied, with people with blue eyes and pale skin in Kashmir, and dark skinned people with negroid features in many parts of South India.
Yet there is a definitely aggressive preference for light skin.
Once there is a racist preference for a particular type, biases against those who don't fit will retain. There is no evidence that mixing will lead to uniformity unless some Big Brother state controls who is allowed to mix with whom, and that's not going to happen.
Some of the most racist people I have encountered are mulattos. Just the other day some one was telling me about New Orleans Creole relatives who refused to inform part of their family about the death of some one because they didn't want those "black" people to show up. This happened in 2013.
Indeed its often the mixed people who, lacking the confidence that they will not be stigmatized by the favored group, because they show visible evidence of being connected to a stigmatized group, often display the greatest animosity towards the stigmatized group. One need only look at attitudes of light skinned mestizos and mulattos towards Indians and blacks right here in the Americas. Even in the "one drop" USA many so called light skinned old money elites were very hostile towards their dark fellow ethnics.
India is one of the most ancient societies in the world. There has been mixing going on for THOUSANDS of years, and yet it is one of the most varied, with people with blue eyes and pale skin in Kashmir, and dark skinned people with negroid features in many parts of South India.
Yet there is a definitely aggressive preference for light skin.
Once there is a racist preference for a particular type, biases against those who don't fit will retain. There is no evidence that mixing will lead to uniformity unless some Big Brother state controls who is allowed to mix with whom, and that's not going to happen.
Some of the most racist people I have encountered are mulattos. Just the other day some one was telling me about New Orleans Creole relatives who refused to inform part of their family about the death of some one because they didn't want those "black" people to show up. This happened in 2013.
Indeed its often the mixed people who, lacking the confidence that they will not be stigmatized by the favored group, because they show visible evidence of being connected to a stigmatized group, often display the greatest animosity towards the stigmatized group. One need only look at attitudes of light skinned mestizos and mulattos towards Indians and blacks right here in the Americas. Even in the "one drop" USA many so called light skinned old money elites were very hostile towards their dark fellow ethnics.
As usual your posts are on the money.
I have only one issue with regards to India. Despite the inbreeding the caste system and the preference of lighter skin does not allow for true mixing. As long as lighter skin seek others with lighter skin the goal of having an entire society with just one skin shade cannot be attained.
However, with travel the pure breed humans will become rare (whether Asian, black or white). I guess I envisioned a future where a 100% African or a 100% Asian will be a rarity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
