This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
What does an Austronesian have to do something with Mongoloid people. Geeze, some insecure White guys seems to enjoy vandalizing this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.69.38 (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest changing this article's name from Mongoloid race to simply Mongoloid. As "Mongoloid" should only apply to physical traits and not to modern or historic racial or social groups.
And it IS an offensive term when refering to either those who may share the physical traits and actual Mongolians, ie those who live in Mongolia Unumbragach (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was referred to as the Mongoloid race when it was in use, so no, it should not be moved. See all other articles about these typological races. FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Centrum99, I suspect you are an insecure white supremacist with rather sick fantasies that the Caucasoid race is "strong" and "maculine", and that Mongoloids are weak and feminine. Judging from your fantastic, non-sensical, unsourced, and unvarifiable edits that obviously stink of twisted racial prejudice! They are full of fantasies about Indo-European, or what you call neolithic Caucasoids, and their imagined "influence" in other populations. If you were to meet me in person, you would probably try to claim that I have some kind of unknown Causcasoid ancestry!
You should be suspended from this page and seek psychiatric assistance.
I also have no idea, where you took the claims you cite. I have never written anything about the influence Indo-Europeans on other populations. You must be a confused person. Centrum99 (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever you edit on a taboo subject such as race, you run the risk of being labeled as a 'racist'. While I do think Le Anh may have jumped the gun, I would like to address why he may have labeled you as such, particularilly your edits on Asians having less sexual dimorphism. Whether you are implying that Asian men are less "masculine", or Asian women as less "feminine", those are some pretty strong accusations, albeit supported with little sources. First, you can help your argument by providing sources, especially since wikipedia has a strict 'no original research' rule. Usually the biggest subject when discussing sexual dimorphism is the male and female differences between testosterone and estrogen, so I assume that is the subject you are addresing. Since you are saying that sexual dimorphism is lower in asians, you are implying that males have less testerone then other races or females have less estrogen then other races. Lets look at testoterone, since there is little research on Asian females and estrogen. Probably the most complete study I found on testosterone differences between Asian men and Caucasian men is found here: http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/91/2/687, which cumulates there own findings, with the findings of previous studies (which honestly there hasn't been a lot of studies on, considering the controversial nature of the subject) The results may surprise you:
" Most investigators were unable to demonstrate a difference in serum concentrations of bioavailable testosterone between Caucasians and Asians, while one group, found even higher serum testosterones in Asian men compared to Caucasian men. In contrast, de Jong and Heald found a slight difference consistent with our findings. " Bioavailable testosterone, which is the amount of testosterone in the body, is probably the most important aspect of testosterone, it accounts for muscle building, aggresivness, and sexual drive, usually the only traits we want in testosterone anyway (although aggresiveness is debatable). Most studies have shown no differnce in bioavaiable testosterone between Asians and Caucasians, and one said that Asians (typo in the source, it should say Japanese, perhaps there is an ethnic difference in testosterone levels between Asians) have more. One study said that said that while the Chinese have less bioavailable testosterone then Caucasians, Chinese-Americans had same testosterone levels as Caucasians, implying that dietary factors play a role, since Chinese on a Western diet have similar levels to Westerners. Only 3 studies have said Asians have slightly less. One of these cited in the article only looked at Pakistanis (not Mongoloids), so this only leaves two. The 2 studies only looked at Asians from mainland area, not Asians living in Western nations who ate a Western diet, and even then while the differences was statistically significant, it was slight. This leaves open the idea that the studies that showed differences were due to dietary reasons.
EDIT: It is also significant to point out, that one of the 2 studies that painted an Asian (Korean) mean testosterone level as slightly lower then Europeans (in this case Sweedes), still gave a mean serum amount equal to Pakistanis, a Caucasoid ethnic group that is significantly hairy as well. This provides evidence that facial and body hair growth is a poor indicator of free testosterone levels.
ILoveYou17 (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)This article generalizes Mongoloids' physical appearances.Not all Mongoloids look the same.There's a huge difference between Northern Mongoloids and Southern Mongoloids.Non-projecting noses?Most Northern Mongoloids(except for Mongols) have high,narrow nose.Brachycephalic skulls?Source this or get rid of it.I read it in the Britannica Encyclopedia that only Koreans,Kazaks,and some people living in the Alps are known to have brachycephalic skulls."Mongoloids also are characterized by an absence or thinly distributed facial and body hair, and lesser sweat glands"?Please source this.Northern Mongoloids(again,except for Mongols) tend to have more body hair.The "black hair and dark brown eyes"thing is really stereotypical.There are brunette Mongoloids and even a few are redhead.There are Mongoloids with amber or hazel eyes.Somebody please edit that section about Mongoloid physical traits![reply]
Definitely, and I wouldn't exclude Mongols from thos "northern Mongoloid" traits that you mentioned. Peopl I've met, from Mongolia, and others who claim such ancestry (like the Gurung of Nepal), always seem to be hairy and have full-noses. I am of Vietnamese descent, am hairy, yet I lack a projectile nose. Le Anh-Huy (talk) 07:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The section concentrates heavily on 19th century sources positing heavy Mongolian admixture outside the Himalayas and Northeast, which is now known not to be true. Note the one modern source cited (Vikrant Kumar) confines itself to the Northeast.
The article should reflect the modern scientific position by stating it explicitly and/or citing a preponderant number of sources. Historical views should be presented as historical. --JWB (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Headings, if any, could also just list time periods. Post-WWII mainstream sources generally have a modern perspective on race. More recently, genetics has also provided much data falsifying earlier hypotheses. --JWB (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The Mongoloid skull has proceeded further than in any other people."[1] "The Mongoloid skull, whether Chinese or Japanese, has been rather more neotenized than the Caucasoid or European."[1] "The female skull, it will be noted, is more pedomorphic in all human populations than the male skull." [1] "Mongoloid races are explained in terms of being the most extreme paedomorphic humans."[2] "The intuition that advanced human development was paedomorphic rather than recapitulationary and accelerated was disturbing to many Eurocentric nineteenth century anthropologists."[3] "If juvenilization was the characteristic for advanced status, then it was clear that the Mongoloid races were more deeply fetalized in most respects and thus capable of the greatest development." [3]
This recent change is probably more pertinent and more factually correct than this:
17th century anthropologist Christoph Meiners, one of the first people to define the "Mongolian race", characterized the "Mongolian race" as being "weak in body... dark...[and] ugly".[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.251.199 (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me the "proof" that he got that showed mongoloids are dark and weak in body? weak in body relative to what? to caucasians? why would caucasoid be used as a standard when comparing above other races? this BS should be removed.
Inhabitants of East Asia are weak in body because of chronic lack of nourishing food, especially proteins. It is not an inherent racial feature. Skeletons of Asian people of the 14th century show no substantial difference in strength from those found in Europe. Since that, significant attenuation can be observed. Answering your question directly: they are weak in body relative to their own ancestors. --Yecril (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article changed quite a bit! It was as if it was written by a White supremacist before, but now it is as if it was written by an Asian supremacist. Not that it needs any change as everything is verifiable and comes from anthropology books and much recent than those of before.
Well done to the contributor's of this article. I am pleased to see a genuine effort has been made to scientifically and anthropologically discuss the postulated origins and features of Mongoloid peoples; rather than waffling on about the 'evils' of attempting to categorise people in todays overly P.C. environment Hxseek (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both 'ugly' and 'weak in body' are unsubstantiated opinions in regards to the Mongoloid race. As a Caucasian man I've already witnessed many Mongoloids who are much larger in physique then either Caucasians or Negroid. Only a fool will not see the obvious racialist bias evident by simply visiting both Caucasian and Mongoloid pages at once.
I'm actually curious why no sources written by Mongoloids themselves in their own physical appearances have been cited. Are there seriously no sources at all - or does the writers of this page only wish to present a euro-centric point of view? It's no wonder we are classed as racists everywhere we go!
Can you show me the "proof" that he got that showed mongoloids are dark and weak in body? weak in body relative to what? to caucasians? why would caucasoid be used as a standard when comparing above other races? this BS should be removed.
Was this section just added? In either case may I offer an expansion:
Before:
Variation in traits between groups
Variation in traits can be rather considerable between certain groups due to climatic variation, the most apparent of these differences concern the shape of the skull, the constitution of the body and the colour of the skin.
After:
Variation in traits between groups
Variation in traits can be rather considerable between certain groups due to climatic variation, the most apparent of these differences concern the shape of the skull, the constitution of the body and the colour of the skin. As a result many anthropologists have suggested different theories of possible subraces to classify the Mongoloid race more accurately.
A. Northeast Asian or Northern Mongoloid race (various subraces in China, Manchuria, Korea and Japan)
B. Southeast Asian or Southern Mongoloid race (various subraces in southwest China, Indochina, Thailand, Myanmar [Burma], Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines, the last four partly hybridized with Australoids)
C. Micronesian-Polynesian race (predominantly Southern Mongoloid partly hybridized with Australoids)
D. Ainuid race (remnants of aboriginal population in northern Japan)
E. Tungid race (Mongolia and Siberia, Eskimos)
F. Amerindian race (American Indians; various subraces)
Source: Baker, J. R. (1974) Race, Oxford University Press, New York and London.
There is also proposal of a Turanid race by either Baker, Coon, or Richard McCulloch, I'm not sure which. But it notes the genetic similarities between Mongolic and Turkic ethnics especially in regards to Haplogroup C3. I hope others can expand on this as my time is limited.
WHY WON'T PEOPLE GET IT!? Just because their native Japan is surrounded by Mongoloids doesn't mean they are!
[5]
And besides, just look at the picture of Asians: No. 1: Ainu. Does he have tan skin and an epicanthus?
--67.80.57.142 (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)GooglePedia12 (Sorry I forgot to log in.)[reply]
Erm...not all Mongoloid peoples have "tan skin" (many Koreans, Japanese, Northern Chinese et al don't) and not everyone of Mongoloid "ancestry" have epicanthal folds such as many from Tibet for instance (just as some Caucasians populations such as Scandinavians, Uralic peoples, Slavs and Gaels can fairly commonally have epicanthal folds), but that is besides the point as having a certain skin tone or an epicanthus do not make one mongoloid...Mongoloid despite what this article seems to imply only really refers to those with the Mongoloid skull type, just as Caucasian and Negroid refer to the European/Western Asian/North African ("white"), and African ("black") skull types respectively. I have added the "white" and "black" just to make it clear what I mean, defining groups by colours is ridiculous as Caucasians and Mongoloid peoples range in skin tones to a very great deal. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this article is good at getting people pissed off, so at the risk of getting burned I'm going to throw a quick note into the mix. The abstract says that the term comes from "discredited theories," which is all well and good - maybe they are. But we need something to back that up, because the companion terms - Caucasoid and Negroid are both referred to as valid terms in physical anthropology in their articles, and they in turn reference the term Mongoloid in the same light. So, this needs some clarification. Jordanp (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with all these articles is that they conflate obsolete racial classifications with perfectly valid aspects of physical anthropology. The problem is that the terminology of scientific racism survives in physical anthropology today.
The article needs to be very clear whether it is citing historical literature (pre-1970s) or current-day literature (post-1970s). Pre-1970s literature should be confined to sections dealing with the racial concepts, and post-1970s literature using the same term should be confined to a separate section on contemporary usage.
Of course, as long as the title of this article is "Mongoloid race", the non-racial stuff could strictly be considered off-topic and to be disabiguated. --dab(𒁳)10:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1, genghis khan picture is not an accurate representation of mongoloids as it was PAINTED by an artist with no training in anatomy
2, the section reads like those racist parts of encyclopedia britannica in the 19th century when it treated africans like zoo specimens
3, this "features" section is not found on negroid, caucasoid, or caucasian articles, and it is written exclusively by caucasian authors, yet i dont see ANYONEs commentary on caucasian or ngriod. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.134.46 (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being written by "Caucasian authors" does not disqualify any source as either relevant or reliable. The portrait of Genghis Kahn is not there to illustrate "anatomy", it is there to illustrate Genghis Khan. It was his activity as a conquerer, killer and prolific descendent-creator that led to the choice of the Mongols to name the racial category. Historical models of race need to be historicised not excised. Paul B (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That should have been deleted, which I've done. There is no evidence for something called the 'Mongolian cuticle', which is why the toe article was renamed from Mongolian cuticle. See its talk page also. Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article correctly documents the historical use of the term 'mongol' in the UK, originally as a neutral term for what we would now call Down syndrome, but subsequently as an offensive term for anyone with learning difficulties. Although 'mongol' is rarely used in that sense today, it has spawned the slang term 'monged' meaning to be temporarily incapacitated through excessive use of recreational drugs, particularly cannabis. This term is now in common use by people under 30 throughout the English speaking world. Most people who use it are completely ignorant of the etymology and are unaware that it could be considered offensive. Some reference to this would be appropriate. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is using data from the Nazi era as well as obsolote racial terms.Some people seem to love the ideas of nazi era racialism. Its not so much the article itself, but the way other articles link to it. Honestly, its disgusting!--95.223.187.114 (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Guest3333[reply]
That is certainly troubling, as this article is not meant to address present day ideas about race, at least not those in mainstream academics. Could you give some examples so that we could try to address the issue? --Danger (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here is an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazara_people#Genetics
The above article is using modern terminology such as "Eastern Eurasian" yet this term links here.I have not the means to research how many articles link to this page in similar manners, but I am sure wikipedian seniors do know their way around.There seems to be an agenda to create racialist * historical* articles and then link to them in a modern context, creating the impression on the public, that these are still in use by modern societies. I am sure you get the point.--95.223.187.114 (talk) 06:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Guest3333[reply]
I believe all these racial obsolete terms need to be less detailed, less quotes from that era, less craniometric measurements, less capoid, negroid, nordic, australoid, caucasoid, mongoloid terms, less nazi race comparison tables.Or there needs to be a clear bunderstanding that these are actually obsolete terms that have been debunked for the large part.
Just enter East Asian, or Estern Eurasian or even Asian in the main search bar on the start page and it takes you here first.Almost every article that deals with race has these overtones and I also believe it is certainly troubling.--95.223.187.114 (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Guest3333[reply]
Stop mutually self-gratifying each other, like typical left-wing brainwashers. Race is a reality. It is not easily categorized,nor are some of the conclusions used in the past valid. However, phenotypic variabilty is apparent and obvious, and discussing it does not equal racism 121.209.233.94 (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it is offensive, because most Asian look a like with minor differences such as skin colour it is only logical that they should have their own race —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.108.26 (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
However I know the term mong is offensive to people with down syndrome but I have never heard mongoloid being offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.108.26 (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OBSOLETE RACIAL CLASSIFICATIONS !!! This article is ridiculous, because whoever has an interest publishing this sort of BS seems to have an interest, to make people believe that all these are still valid and much used terms. This wrong! and now this crap is even protected?95.223.187.171 (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the above commenter is actually 100% right. This article is atrocious and literally horrific. I am appalled that it even exists considering it is diametrically opposed to modern science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.143.90 (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
mistranslated version (left); new fixed version (right)
http://www.museum.kyushu-u.ac.jp/WAJIN/113.html
Assuming the tree was translated from Japanese from the Japanese website currently used as its citation, it was translated wrong. ネグロイド (Neguroido) clearly translates as "Negroid" not "African". コーカソイド (Kōkasoido) clearly translates as "Caucasoid" not "Caucasian". オーストラロイド (Ōsutoraroido) clearly translates as "Australoid" not "Oceanian". アシアのモンゴロイド (Ashia no Mongoroido) clearly translates to "Mongoloid of Asia" not "East Asian". Lastly, even though it is not as important an issue, アメリンド (Amerindo), would translate to "Amerindoid".--Ephert (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously folks, how can you write three screenfuls of misinformation on the subject of "Populations Included" in the "mongoloid race" ( however passe or discredited that concept may be), and not mention Chinese, Japanese or Koreans one single time ? This is supposed to be an encylopedia ! If someone looks to an encyclopedia to obtain some basic understanding of the nineteenth century scientific paradigm of the division of the world's people into "Mongoloids", "Negroes" and "Caucasians", there are going to be seriously confused or misled by the information contained here.Eregli bob (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to do searches with "Korean", "Japanese" and "Chinese" in combination with the word "Mongoloid" to try to find more statements that these three groups are Mongoloid.--Ephert (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely an absurd article. Modern scientists do not cotton to the idea of biological racial types, and yet this article and its companions are treated in such a way as to indicate that the majority of experts agree with the theory. Perhaps this was true 100 years ago, but now the only people shouting about Negroids and Mongoloids are literally racists. What is going on here, Wikipedia? Very troubling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.143.90 (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly does the article endorse race-based discrimination, or try to justify it? I can't find anything like that, or even close.
Carleton S. Coon's anthropological works did use the framework of race, but calling him racist for that alone would be silly. In medicine, forensics and other fields, the term "race" is still in use in basically the same traditional sense, for practical reasons, which does not make those fields racist. George W. Gill argues that race is a meaningful concept and not at all skin-deep (in fact, that skin colour has little to do with it) – it would be very offensive to call him racist for that.
It's true that it presents a racial classification as basically cutting-edge science and smacks of WP:SYN by adding genetic research into the fold, but I find it justified to some extent because, when you get to the heart of the matter, that research really concerns the same thing, it just tends to avoid the traditional race-based terminology. Still, calling it some different term ("ancestry", "North Asia-derived populations", or whatever) doesn't make it something completely different. Anthropologists have sure tried to get rid of the framework, but they keep finding themselves talking about the same issues that Blumenbach, Coon et al. already addressed. Does that make them covert racists – in other words, people who don't even know they're somehow being incredibly eeeeevil deep at heart? Is wondering about human variation and perceiving clusters and categories (as humans are wont to do, even when the borders are clearly fuzzy – that's an issue far from unique to human variation, and Gill even seems to say the borders are not really fuzzy on the skeletal level) a thought crime? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do have to say that I find it amusing how people are ready to paint, in a knee-jerk reaction, anyone with the racist brush who even dares to seriously employ terms such as "Mongoloid" or "Caucasoid", without realising that eminent and influential scientists such as Franz Boas, Luca Cavalli-Sforza or Colin Renfrew are tainted by the same "crime" of "scientific racism" ...
Yeah, exaggerated political correctness is sure changing the world, and barking "racist!" at anyone who uses "bad" words will somehow magically get rid of racism in the real world. Or not, because actions speak louder than words. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The original poster is right. The article presents cherry-picked fringe views and completely disregards the mainstream viewpoint in anthropology that there is no such thing as continental racial groupings. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·20:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you may presume I can. You could also look in any undergraduate introduction to physical anthropology published after 1970 and see how it treats "race".·ʍaunus·snunɐw·00:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the mainstream (not that there is only one viewpoint represented down here - but you will notice that none of them treats "mongoloid race" as a generally valid concept). There are a couple of more good texts I could point to in undergraduate readers, handbooks and texbooks.
Brace, CL (1964). "A Non-racial Approach Toward the Understanding of Human Diversity". In Ashley Montagu (ed.). The Concept of Race. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Brace, CL (2005). "Race is a four letter word". Oxford University Press. p. 326. ISBN9780195173512. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)
Cravens, Hamilton (2010). "What's New in Science and Race since the 1930s?: Anthropologists and Racial Essentialism". The Historian. 72 (2): 299. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Dikötter, Frank (1992). The discourse of race in modern China. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ISBN9780804719940. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Graves, Joseph L (2001). The Emperor's New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millenium. Rutgers University Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Keita, SOY; Kittles, RA (1997). "The persistence of racial thinking and the myth of racial divergence". Am Anthropol. 99: 534–544. doi:10.1525/aa.1997.99.3.534. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Lee, Jayne Chong-Soon (1997). "Review essay: Navigating the topology of race"". In Gates, E. Nathaniel (ed.). Critical Race Theory: Essays on the Social Construction and Reproduction of Race. Vol. 4:The Judicial Isolation of the "Racially" Oppressed. New York: Garland Pub. pp. 393–426. ISBN9780815326038. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Lieberman, L (2001). "How "Caucasoids" got such big crania and why they shrank: from Morton to Rushton". Curr Anthropol. 42 (1): 69–95. doi:10.1086/318434. PMID14992214.
Lieberman, Leonard; Kirk, Rodney (1997). "Teaching About Human Variation: An Anthropological Tradition for the Twenty-first Century". In Rice, Patricia; Kottak, Conrad Phillip; White, Jane G.; Richard H. Furlow (ed.). The Teaching of Anthropology: Problems, Issues, and Decisions. Mayfield Pub. p. 381. ISBN1-55934-711-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
Lieberman, Leonard; Jackson, Fatimah Linda C. (1995). "Race and Three Models of Human Origins". American Anthropologist. 97 (2): 231–242. doi:10.1525/aa.1995.97.2.02a00030. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Lieberman, Leonard; Hampton, Raymond E.; Littlefield, Alice; Hallead, Glen (1992). "Race in Biology and Anthropology: A Study of College Texts and Professors". Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 29: 301–321. Bibcode:1992JRScT..29..301L. doi:10.1002/tea.3660290308. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Marks, J (1995). Human biodiversity: genes, race, and history. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. ISBN0-585-39559-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Marks, Jonathan (2008). "Race: Past, present and future. Chapter 1". In Barbara Koenig, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee & Sarah S. Richardson (ed.). Revisiting Race in a Genomic Age. Rutgers University Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
No, I cannot. Wikipedia relies on its editors to be able to recognize a recent mainstream source such as a general textbook, handbook or encyclopedia when presented with one. Sometimes its hard, but don't despair, I am here to help you.·ʍaunus·snunɐw·00:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks. But it does seem odd that you would claim that all of the sources in the article are cherry picked, but that all of your sources are not cherry picked, with no way of demonstrating that. No worries.
I do not have access to all of these sources. I read the last one. It seems clear they were saying that genetic analysis shows distinctive continental populations DO exist, in a fuzzy kind of way. Go ahead punk (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Populations are not races. The word race means something else. Some traits do cluster very roughly by continent - most cluster across continents. This does not mean that races exist and especially not that a "mongoloid" race exist. The idea of "mongoloid/Caucasoid/negroid" division represents a pre-1950'es ideology of biological variation. Newer data does not use this division at all. The article is cherrypicked because it includes each and every usage of the word "mongoloid" - except for the hundreds of mainstream sources (again such as recent textbooks, review articles, encyclopedias) that show that the concept is out dated. But yes - to be able to judge whether something is cherrypicked requires knowledge of the full body of literature on a topic. It requires an editor to do actual research into the topic - not just to add sources they happen to stumble on or agree with. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·15:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Generally genetic evidence suggests that continental races are not the best way to represent the way that genetics traits cluster. Some traits such as "shovel shaped molars" and epicanthic folds for example do cluster in east asian and native american populations. Race does not mean one thing - but historically it has almost always included the assumption that races are discrete biological groups characterized by certain essential inherited characteristics - this view is completely obsolete as it has been conclusively shown that there are no such discrete groups and there are no essential characteristics. Traits are clinally distributed, and are the result of complex genetic histories. Exactly in order to avoid the outdated essentialist assumption implicit in the word race most contemporary discussions of biological variation use the terms populations. Exceptions are in the fields of forensic anthropology in the US and "race based medicine"- both of which are based in US-american tradition of race - and which tends to take race to mean something like "continental ancestry". There is wide agreement outside of these fields however that such a usage is infelicitous as it makes it seem as if races are natural categories when in fact they are social categories specific to the US context that just maps onto underlying biological variation. I.e. someone with a visible amount of African ancestry in the US is likely to be called "African-American" or "black" - but this is because of a social convention that can change and has changed through the times - and a person with the same absolute amount of African ancestry but with out the same degree of phenotypic correspondence to the phenotype might not be classified as such. This is a very complex issue - and this page does not even begin to represent the complexities. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·16:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are wrong that races were almost always considered to be discrete groups. Blumenbach who systematized the term "Mongoloid" explicitly described the fuzzy boundaries of races. What you are talking about sounds like polygenism, which was pretty much exploded by Darwin. The Darwinists believed that men are descended from apes, how is that possible to reconcile with anything "essentialist"? I find it very hard to believe that modern scientists have any thoughts of essentialism when using the term race. I find it hard to believe that lay people do too, could you provide some sources showing that the average lay person thinks race is essentialist? I mean actually demonstrating that rather than just asserting it.
And if they do think this, isn't the correct procedure to explain the correct nature of the concept, rather than coming up with a big mouthful of a term which lay people are expected to use to describe an everyday phenomenon because they allegedly don't understand the nature of the concept, even though leading scientists always have?
I mean, lay people don't understand the nature of the term "Black Race", right, but apparently they will understand the nature of "Sub Saharan African Population"? I wonder at that logic. Go ahead punk (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No this is not about polygenism - although polygenic theory did underpin racial(ist) thinking well into the 20th century (and still does to some degree). I recommend that you start with either Brace's or Graves introductions to the race concept - they are really very good: two leading scientists describing very eloquently why they don't use the term race. As for demonstrating: "racism" relies on essentialist assumptions - racism exists, and it is in fact possible to be a darwnist and a racist at the same time weirdly enough.·ʍaunus·snunɐw·17:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you do seem to be advocating wiping this article based on what seem to be rather airy assumptions of intended meaning by a handful of scholars. It sounds to me that the term "essentialist" used against the term is nothing more than a gratuitous pejorative. It hasn't been sufficiently demonstrated that "Mongolian Race" as used by the many scholars referenced in this article has a significantly different meaning from "East Asian Population Group". Until it is WP:COMMONNAME requires the title "Mongolian Race". If you can demonstrate here (using sources) that the scholars using the term are having pre-1950s "essentialist" thoughts while doing so please go ahead. I think we need a little more evidence than "Brace and Graves say they are essentialists" before wiping this article. I also put it that it is incorrect to state that the term is obsolete since it is still in use. I think we should put that is is disfavored by some and I definitely agree that some may find it offensive. We should also state that the term is synonymous with "East Asian Population Group". Go ahead punk (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John Relethfords "Human Species" is used as a source 7 times. HEre is what he writes about "mongoloid": "It may come as a surprise, but scientists attempting racial classification of humans have never agreed on how many races exist. Some have suggested that there are three human races: Europeans, Africans, and Asians (often referred to by the archaic terms “Caucasoid,” “Negroid,” and “Mongoloid,” which are almost never used in scientifi c research today). But many populations do not fit neatly into one of these three basic categories." I will of course have to remove all material based on this source since it is being misrepresented.·ʍaunus·snunɐw·13:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. So because Relethford states that racial categories have fuzzy boundaries, and that there are some "in between" populations which don't fit neatly, you are going to go right off the deep end and misinterpret that as "racial categories do not exist", and chop Relethford's own use of racial categories from the article? Pretty dense. That is wildly unacceptable behavior. Go ahead punk (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relethford is stating that "Mongoloid" is an archaic term for "Asian" (Americans say that to mean East Asian). Your opinion that you "disagree" doesn't count for toffee. Go ahead punk (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously haven't read Relethford's long chapter on race and human biological variation. Now go somewhere and read it and come back when you have.·ʍaunus·snunɐw·14:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So when Relethford writes in the same book "The CCR5 gene is located on chromosome 3 and codes for a chemical receptor. A mutant allele, known as CCR5-[Delta]32, is characterized by a deletion of 32 base pairs. This allele has been found in moderate frequencies (0.03–0.14) in Europeans but is absent in Africans, East Asians, and Native Americans.", you believe that is a meaningless statement because some populations do not fit into those categories? We cannot even speak of Europeans, or East Asians, because they are not perfectly neat categories? Despite the fact that Relethford himself uses those categories to describe human variation? You have evidence that "Mongoloid race" was ever intended to mean something different to "East Asian Population"? Don't tell me, it was "essentialist". Go ahead punk (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A great source here is "Mapping Human Genetic Diversity in Asia" (2009) from the Human Genome Organisation Pan-Asian SNP Consortium. They conclude that human variation is not "continuous" at all but fractures along ethno-linguistic boundaries. Now think about the border between Bangladesh and Burma. Bangladesh is 98% Bengali, Burma is 68% Shan (Sino Tibetan), 7% Karen (Sino Tibetan) and 9% Shan (Tai). Do you really think that Blumenbach's Caucasoid/Mongoloid was just drawing arbitrary lines on continuous variation? Go ahead punk (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All sources used in an article have to explicitly treat the topic of the article - i.e. in this case they have to use the term "mongoloid" and explicitly state that their findings relate to the topic of "mongoloid race". Sources about population genetics do not generally use this terminology which means that including them here is OR and SYNTH. I will remove those sources gradually.·ʍaunus·snunɐw·14:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sino tibetan language familyIndo Aryan language family Yes good point. Actually I was thinking that this article should be renamed "East Asian (race)", redirected from "Mongoloid", and just mention Mongoloid in the history.
As for sources, I am using sources. On the one hand we have the Human Genome Organisation Pan-Asian SNP Consortium conducting a gene anlaysis for a large sample of populations in Asia and stating that variation is highly correlated with ethno-linguistic groups and (press release) "Some of the key findings of this paper are: East and Southeast Asians share a common origin." On the other hand we have John Relethford asserting without argument that variation is "continuous". Which is it? Go ahead punk (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was commonly believed that Polynesians form their own "sub-race" of Mongoloids according to Huxley and Sullivan (in the case of the "Samoans") during the 19th and early 20th centuries, but the picture is more complicated than that as far as physical anthropology and modern genetics are concerned. It can be said with confidence that Polynesians are not a "pure stock" of people or that they do not make up the out-dated concept of the "Malay race" (out-dated in my opinion). Indeed, some have claimed that Polynesians make up their own "race" altogether, but even that is falsifiable. I'd suggest finding more updated sources on the subject of Polynesians, and a similar discussion should be within the Australoid and Polynesian articles. -Ano-User (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
^ abcMontagu, Ashley. Growing Young. Published by Greenwood Publishing Group, 1989
ISBN0897891678
^Moxon, Steve. The Eternal Child: An Explosive New Theory of Human Origins and Behaviour by Clive Bromhall
Ebury Press, 2003. [2]
^ abGrossinger, Richard. Embryogenesis. Published by North Atlantic Books, 2000
ISBN155643359X
^Cite error: The named reference Painter was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
