Talk:Alpine race/Archive 1

Archive 1

Verbatim copy of qualifier on validity of race concept

I just copied the below piece of text from the Nordic race article, because I didn't feel it was made clear enough how outdated historical race concepts like these are. I admit I was having a lapse of concern that the entire pseudoscientific contents from humanphenotypes.net, theapricityforums or worse, would find its way onto wikipedia, but I'm glad to see that this isn't the case. Still, I feel like this need to be clearly underlined for all these articles dealing with outdated human race concepts. And rather than doing what I just did, maybe we should construe a kind of disclaimer template that we can mark all these related articles with.

With the rise of modern genetics, the concept of distinct human races in a biological sense has become obsolete. In 2019, the American Association of Physical Anthropologists stated: "The belief in 'races' as natural aspects of human biology, and the structures of inequality (racism) that emerge from such beliefs, are among the most damaging elements in the human experience both today and in the past."

Amphioxys (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Adolf Hitler's opinions on Mussolini are meaningless and should be removed

"Adolf Hitler utilized the term Alpine to refer to a type of the Aryan race, and in an interview spoke admiringly about his idol Italian Fascist leader Benito Mussolini, commending Mussolini's Alpine racial heritage saying:

They know that Benito Mussolini is constructing a colossal empire which will put the Roman Empire in the shade. We shall put up ... for his victories. Mussolini is a typical representative of our Alpine race...

— Adolf Hitler, 1931[10]"

This contribution, as well as the captioned image of Adolf Hitler standing next to Mussolini, should be removed. Adolf Hitler was not a physical anthropologist, and his propagandized comments about Mussolini do not bear relevance to this article. Furthermore, the quoted text does not indicate that Adolf Hitler considered "Alpines" to be a part of an "Aryan race", nor does he "commend Mussolini's Alpine racial heritage" in this propagandized statement, and the wording "his idol Italian Fascist leader" is both awkward and suspicious, as if this entire paragraph could have been written by a Fascist, Nazi, or racist with some kind of fetish.

Infact, much of this article reads as if it were written by someone who believes themself to be an "Alpine", and who is trying to "Aryanize" or glorify Alpines in a way that covers up the rather lowly status attributed to people of this physical description, by 19th - 20th century racists, such as Madison Grant and Hans Günther.

User "Beyond My Ken" writes on the history page Alpine race:

"Whether Hitler was an anthropologist or not is completely irrelevant, his views were important because they effected [sic] the world. As a result of his views millions of people died. His views on race are abhorrent, but still important. Do not revert again, discuss on the talk page."

Actually, the fact that Adolf Hitler was not an anthropologist is entirely relevant. Since Adolf Hitler was a high school dropout with no formal education in anthropology, his classification of Mussolini as an "Alpine" cannot be quoted on a subject of an academic nature. Even if Hitler had gotten a college degree, the fact that this is actual propaganda is also very damning and would nullify its presence here.

Although I appreciate this user's concern for the atrocities of Adolf Hitler's NSDAP, none of them are relevant to the Alpine race article; as there was no Alpine holocaust. There is plenty of information about Hitler's atrocities in the Wikipedia articles in which they are relevant. Adolf Hitler's actions as a governor do not give us a free pass to spam his irrelevant and unqualified screeds on cursory articles pertaining to dry academic subjects unrelated to genocides or wars, such as this. For more information please consult Association fallacy - Hunan201p (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is about all aspects of the concept "Alpine race", not just those which are part of anthropological study. No one is pretending that Hitler's remarks are scientific, and they're not being presented that way, but Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party's views on race killed many millions of people in the Holocaust, so his views on the "Alpine race" (which, anthropologically speaking, doesn't actually exist) are relevant and important to note. Their inclusion does not in any way imply approval of those views. Hunan201p's conception of what the article should cover is unduly restricted, and their conceit that the existence of the Holocaust is not relevant because "there was no Alpine Holocaust" is blinkered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

What? This article isn't about "all" aspects of the Alpine race; it's a very cursory article and one that contains very little information at all about the racial anthropology of the Alpine "race". The Hitler quote and especially this description of it are a blight on the article. There was no Alpine holocaust and a quote from a prooaganda piece by Adolf Hitler, which is actually contrued here as a praise of "Alpines", has no significance to the actual genocide carried out by NSDAP (which in of itself is no justificarion for throwing chopped up Hitler quotes around on any given article). Imagine the same reasoning being used to put Hitler quotes on the German shepherd article, in which he praises his pet dog -- with the justification that German shepherds were instrumental in the Holocaust + Eastern Front (and that Adolf Hitler was interested in animals.)

There is nothing in the Hitler quote that suggests he ever celebrated anyone's "Alpine racial heritage" or that Alpines were "Aryan" and it isn't relevant if Hitler considered Mussolini an "idol" or not -- this is way beyond assumption and constitutes unencylopedic language.

If a Hitler quote concerns the biological or taxonomic inferiority of a group of people he genocided, it is justified to place that quote in the article concerning that group's genocide. But merely bleating about the fact that Hitler killed millions doesn't justify that quote about Mussolini in this article. - Hunan201p (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

This whole line of reasoning is presupposing the validity of this (and related) race concepts. They are, however, severely outdated and no longer part of the scientific discourse. Therefore, given this is a historical concept rather than a scientifically recognized entity, it makes perfect sense to mention all notable historical facts, including the application of this concept by the nazi-regime and its leader. Amphioxys (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

no longer generally accepted?

NO LONGER GENERALLY ACCEPTED? SINCE WHEN POPULARITY DECIDES WETEHR SOMETHING IS RIGHT OR NOT. Alpiens today exist such as they have for thousands of years.

"No longer generally" accepted means just that. It's not a statement of right or wrong, but of a modern consensus. Paul B 00:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are about facts not "concensus". --Finalaval 01:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No, what we call facts in this context is the distilation of scholarly opinion. Why would you call Coon's work "fact" but other authors not - because of your opinion. Paul B 12:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Facts are facts and just that,The Races of Europe is about them. Im not writing what i think of alpines, merely what Coon observed of them.--Sghn 23:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

So Coon's opinions are facts because...he said so? Paul B 23:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"Opinions" is not how you call undeniable observations in the morphology of peoples. A normal person might not recognize a pattern in a coded message while a matematician might, that doesnt mean the code has no pattern, it only means the person doesnt have the capabilities or training. --Sghn 23:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Our policies clearly state that Wikipedia reports things such as scholarly opinion. If you're not happy with that, you can go use a different online encyclopedia. --Fastfission 02:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

it's got to be considered here that a huge proportion of europeans- just like other peoples- aren't PURE anything. Gringo300 02:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? Purity has nothing to do with morphology, unless you are saying metrically and in appearance someone does not diverge at all from Coon's Alpine/Alpinid type, then one is morphologically a pure alpine, right? This is completely unrelated to heredity or genetics, it is typology & anthropological taxonomy. 67.5.156.166 (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

But what does this "typology" mean? Just a bunch of white people who have bred relatively endogamously and show similar features because of this. And if I were you, unless you're talking about Neanderthals vs Denisovians, I would not use the phrase "anthropological taxonomy" with modern day anthropologists. It reeks of old time scientific racism. Pascalulu88 (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

alpines

i'm curious about which peoples are/were considered to be alpines. i have a pretty good idea of which peoples are considered to be nordic.

of course, there will be "interbreeding" ("miscegenation"), which has always gone on all over the world, so that, of course, complicates the picture any way you look at it. Gringo300 02:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Alpines -> Celtic, Slavic, Greek, Indo-Iranian

Alpines + Nordics + Mediterraneans -> (interbred) -> Irish, Scottish

Alpines + Nordics -> (interbred) -> Slavic, Finnic, Dinaric, Noric, Bergian, northern French

Alpines + Mediterraneans -> (interbred) -> Greek, Indo-Iranian, Welsh

nagara373 17:01, 6 Aug 2007

Not quite true

Many Nordicist authors actually refer to Alpines as having brought metalwork to Europe, and how manyf the first civilisations (eg Sumer) were of Alpine origin. The "peasant" allegations appear strange, unless one takes the line that Gunther=common thought. Likewise, many leading Nazis were obviously Alpine... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.206 (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm reading this sort of comment in the 21st century. "Many leading Nazis were obviously Alpine." OK Pascalulu88 (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Line in article

While it is true that most modern anthropologists do not identify a single "Alpine race", the line about "because genetics..." seems like POV to me. The current genetic data can be read in a variety of ways. The most (in)famous example is a study which was used to state that Greeks and Ethiopians are closely related. http://www.makedonka.org/processpaid.aspcontentid=ti.2001.pdf This is still widely distributed as fact, and is shown to use genetic to show which groups do/do not cluster together. Yet, it has been shown to be a n interpretation of data, that is at best simple error, and at worst deliberate fraud. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nlh.gov/pubmed/11543891?dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nlh.gov/pubmed/12542743?dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nlh.gov/pubmed/15361127?dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi/nlm.nlh.gov/pubmed/14533184?dopt=Abstract The point of all this? That genetics, can and have been read/used in different ways, and quite possibly for different purposes. Stating that modern anthropology does not recognise an Alpine Race is one thing. To state that the genetics upon which this lack of realisation is based is an absolute truth seems shaky at best. Dr Rgne (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Dr Rgne", this page is not about Arnaiz-Villiena, so stop fighting totally irrelevant battles, which frankly have no place here and is a tiresome war between white race-obsessives and black-race obsessives. Since I actually created the Antonio Arnaiz-Villena page, you are not telling me anything I'm not fully aware of. There is no POV. The concept of an Alpine race is no longer used - not because it is wrong (it's probably unfalsifiable) but because it is no longer useful. Genetics has replaced these categories with different ways of modelling ancient lineage, which are more complex but also more precisely defined. Extrapolating from genetic evidence to make political claims about race categories is precisely one of the problems. Paul B (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay I understand, but perhaps something should be added to state that "genetics" are no more correct/incorrect then the Nordic/Alpine/Mediterranean model? Dr Rgne (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that sounds quite stupid. The point is that the way the article is written could be interpreted by some to mean that genetics is markedly superior or "better" than morphology, when at this stage neither can be shown to be foolproof as such. Dr Rgne (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Caption on map

Surely using parentheses as in "European races" is POV? Note the way the identical map is captioned in the articles for Nordic race, Madison Grant and Passing of the Great Race. If it were to say "Present Distribution of the European Races" it would show that the entire concept was Grant's, whereas present distribution of the "European races" makes it appear that biological groups do indeed correspond to those boundaries, however the concept of race itself is nonexistent. I have tried correcting this already, but was warned for "vandalism". Surely if the other 3 articles all have the IDENTICAL wording, then altering this article to fit the standard can not possibly be vandalism? Thank you. 41.245.143.119 (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"genetics are presently regarded as the correct way to classify ethnic groups"

"The concept of a distinctive Alpine race is no longer generally used within physical anthropology, as genetics are presently regarded as the correct way to classify ethnic groups."

Actually that is just what Wikipedians want to think, most geneticists do not classify ethnic groups at all they merely tell us what genetic markers are common in various populations. Ethnicity concerns language, culture, and self identification with others regarded as being ethnically not what someone is "genetically". If someone from Germany has genetic markers in common with say a Mongolian, through a distant ancestor (apart from Racial Supremacists maybe) most what not claim that he is Mongolian in an ethnic sense but merely that some of his genetic ancestors originated in that part of the world (I use "Mongolian" as it is common in Europe to find out you have ancient Mongolian ancestry). As usual some Wikipedian is placing these strange "race theories" on the site, contributing to Wikipedia being regarded as a laughing stock by many.

I'd also like to point out that the Mongoloid peoples (generally regarded as those with a Mongoloid skull type...AKA cranial bone structure, not a "race" per se) share many of the same genetic markers with Caucasians and that North African and European populations (which are Caucasian groups) share some genetic markers with Africans as they came into contact with them over the centuries.

In short genetics is rarely used to define race (which is generally regarded as unscientific to begin with) and is certainly not valid in regards to ethnic groups either.

This should be changed and I shall change it shortly if no one else does. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think you can improve the wording, do so. Don't waste time and space complaining to some non-existent failed authority. Paul B (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Mediterraneans have narrow nose

none of ripley, coon or grant said they had broad nose. wiki want to convince readers they were racist to consider Mediterranid came from africa and Alpinids came from asia?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.213.30.45 (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Forgive me, but we're supposed to be serious about nose width? Pascalulu88 (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Racism

I think a lot of the articles relating to William Z. Ripley's book and his specified "races" need to include a section detailing the consensus among scientists (it would end up being mostly geneticists) today about how eugenics fell out of favor because it did not provide an accurate model. It's very easy to draw false generalizations from superficial characteristics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.38.189.84 (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Talking about races is not racism. But not allowing to talk is censorship. Races are a fact, censorship is ideology. --178.197.224.77 (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

How exactly are races a fact? The Supreme Court in US v Thind ruled in 1923 that race in the US is entirely a matter of perception. You are whatever race the majority of (white) people decide you are. Is that the type of "fact" you mean? Pascalulu88 (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Alpinerace.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Alpinerace.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Benito Mussolini is Mediterranean. Hitler was insane and said anything to protect his beliefs.

Just look at Mussolini pictures. His skin is pretty dark. He was certainly not part of the alpine race. That whole bit about Hitler saying he was alpine and the picture of him should not be there. What Hitler said about everything wasn't true. He just like Mussolini as a person and tried to incorporate that in his propaganda. It should be known, though! Just look at pictures of him. Italians are not alpine. They are Mediterranean. Also, look at the booking photograph on his page! Don't say that that is the alpine look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rothskin (talk • contribs) 05:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Italy is on the Meditterranean, but that does not mean all Italians are members of the "Mediterranean race". These are racial categories based on modelling skull shape. There's nothing irrational about placing Mussolini within the "Alpine" category in the typology of the time. Of course it's unlikely to mean anything now, since these categories are no longer used. The category does not mean he is any more or less Italian than anyone else. Paul B (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I note that in two edits a while back you changed the caption to the image without changing the citations, which do not conform with your caption. This is completely unacceptable. If you want to say that Mussolini was categorised as Mediterranean, you need a source that says so. Paul B (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Alpine and Mediterranean are based on skull measurements, not pigmentation alone. There are even Middle Eastern Alpines according to C. Coon. FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You would be amazed how fast a human brain can grow from generation to generation. That's because they didn't teach you about genetic expression in school. Even food activates genes differently (I was blond as a child, now I'm brown haired!). Actually people having similar genes can look quite different due to different genetic expression. Moreover, genes are not so different from race to race as we may think due to the different looks. --178.197.224.77 (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)