What are the physical differences (External and Internal) between races?

originally posted by: youdidntseeme

Not backed up by concrete evidence as you said you wanted. I know many people that exhibit a mix and match of the above characteristics. They are not as cut and dry as you say.

It may not be cut and dry, but there are OBVIOUS differences between races. For example I reconstructed a skull during my Forensics course that turned out to look nearly identical to the deceased. I only came to know things like that he was a late 40's white male by using a number of markers on the skull. My partner's skull belonged to a 22 year old black male. If you looked at the two they were as different as night and day.

Even when you start getting in to mixed race individuals, there are still certain traits that are expressed on the skull that will allow you to make a clay representation of that person with a strikingly close resemblance. As for as skin color, that is why most artists use a natural tone clay. You want the friends and relatives to say, 'Those look like Uncle Joe's eyes.' and not for them to immediately ignore it because Uncle Joe white (but he was mixed and expressed white traits).


As far as the science not being concrete, you're right. But it sure has helped hundreds of John and Jane Doe skeletons get identified.

Facial Recon Wiki

FBI Case Report Regarding Racial Skeletal Differences



ad nauseum

Threads like this just convince me how stupid some people are. Seriously, why?
One fundamental truth in breeding is diversity produces healthier outcomes. So I am a European Classic, with light Asian influences, as far as I know, but I feel a lot more comfortable, when I think about how we are all related. But that's just me and my personality doesn't thrive from pointing out diversities.
You need that to feel superior, huh? Let me tell you something: You are not!. And a thread like this basically disqualifies you as a member of the team "humans". In my opinion, I should add, although you don't deserve that kind of politeness. f'*#+&racist

The whole subject can be put this simply...

I did an experiment when I was young. I got 4 baby fish from the same pond, same father / mother. Put them in different fish bowls. Varied their environment as much as I could . With my limited imagination at the time this was bowl size, dirty / clean water. Different food ( I even feed one only chocolate chippy biscuits ) , lots of oxygen weed, to almost none etc...

2 of them turned out looking so dissimilar. One got big and orange, the other very small and brown. There is no way you would think they were directly related. But they were....

a reply to: thedeadtruth

There's good people and bad people -

You can't tell the difference between the two based on how much money they make, what color their skin is, or what religion they were brought up in -

The controlled media are the only ones that push this "race card".

Make a comparison between immigrants from
Africa (that are mostly Muslim raised) and welfare raised black people in america, and black people in america that were raised with some kind of values (not differentiating religions) -

Then look at "white people" raised in welfare -

There are still good people who come from the worst circumstances, and a lot of bad people raised in "prividlge"(sp?) - or given every oppurtunity to become educated and productive.

environment, education and experience. That's what makes up most parts of the personality. racism is just a form of xenophobia. uh that's different, must be dangerous, or for me to destroy, because some "god"-dude said I am his lovechild. The problem is definitely the outlook on the world so many people have. My god gave us the world as a garden to dance in... I don't know about yours, or if you have one, fact still is: people thinking like the OP, are a big part of the problem, the world in general, currently has.

originally posted by: Lipton

originally posted by: youdidntseeme

Not backed up by concrete evidence as you said you wanted. I know many people that exhibit a mix and match of the above characteristics. They are not as cut and dry as you say.

It may not be cut and dry, but there are OBVIOUS differences between races. For example I reconstructed a skull during my Forensics course that turned out to look nearly identical to the deceased. I only came to know things like that he was a late 40's white male by using a number of markers on the skull. My partner's skull belonged to a 22 year old black male. If you looked at the two they were as different as night and day.

Even when you start getting in to mixed race individuals, there are still certain traits that are expressed on the skull that will allow you to make a clay representation of that person with a strikingly close resemblance. As for as skin color, that is why most artists use a natural tone clay. You want the friends and relatives to say, 'Those look like Uncle Joe's eyes.' and not for them to immediately ignore it because Uncle Joe white (but he was mixed and expressed white traits).


As far as the science not being concrete, you're right. But it sure has helped hundreds of John and Jane Doe skeletons get identified.

Facial Recon Wiki

FBI Case Report Regarding Racial Skeletal Differences



ad nauseum

What you say is a bit ridiculous and you don't realise what you are saying :

Races are a made up categorisation. The people who made up that categorisation have made a choice between all the visible differences. And all you are saying is "look at their choices of differences!". Do you get it ? Why don't you ask yourself why they didn't chose other differences like the color of the eyes, the length of the arms or legs, or any other visible differences ? During your forensic course, do you say to yourself "ah! this man is taller than 2 meters, he must be from another race, like all the others who are 2 meters tall! I am a genius!".

Moreover, there are far more invisible differences than visible to the naked eye. And it is a known fact that genetically humans are far more alike between them than say chimpanzees.

a reply to: Ninipe

Relax bud. Who said anything about "superior"? Different doesn't mean superior. The thoughts that came to my mind after reading the Whole thread is that we spend a lot of energy trying to pretend there are no differences when maybe it would be better to just be comfortable with our differences. The guy above even showed that the FBI acknowledges these differences when identifying deceased remains. And they can't always go by eye color because bodies decompose and sometimes all you have is a skeleton. They may not be able to say "this is 100% a white person" but they can say "most likely" and that gives them a place to start and this form of "racism" has helped families and loved ones to be informed of their loved ones fate so they don't have to sit there and wwonder if they are alive or not.

Do you deny most NBA players or Olympic gold medal winners in running competitions are black? There are awesome white and Asian basketball players too, but if the fate of the world depended on winning a basketball game or a foot race, I would probably prefer a black guy. I'm a white guy, btw. I think the biggest problem is people like you who get so uncomfortable that you are screaming out curse words when ever the subject of race comes up.

I would prefer to celebrate our differences AND similarities, simultaneously! I would hate to live in a world where everyone was the same. I love all types of people. To say everyone is the same is to deny us of our individuality, and that is going right along with what some call the agenda of the elites. They want a bunch of predictable robots.

It's true, diversity is more healthy. Absolutely. If I have an Asian girlfriend and she tells me "Asians are like this" or "Asians are like that" is she racist? By the way I know a lot of white men who prefer Asian women and a lot of black men who prefer white women. Not all, of course! Just a good amount who I've met in America. What does that mean? Are these baseless statements? Is it racist of me to have noticed that? I don't hate or dislike anyone else because of color of skin or cultural background. But I acknowledge and appreciate our differences. I don't get all angry about it. As long as there's no KKK or NAZIs running around saying one race should rule over others or one race is inferior, then what's wrong with having a discussion about it?

Recently I re watched a Kat Williams stand up comedy act (he's one of my faves, and he talks about race a lot...it seems like people are more accepting of so called "racism" in the context of comedy...why is laughing at our differences OK but serious discussions are not? ) and he said if America ever goes to war with China, don't count on the black man for help because "we love us some Chinese orange chicken!". which is a statement that doesn't necessarily make sense (we would still have the recipe) but it made most of the crowd (mostly black)uproar in laughter. Is that racist? Is he racist? the crowd who laughed?

by the way I also enjoy comedians who talk about subjects other than race. just because he is one of my faves does not mean I am fixated on racial comedy, just in case somebody makes that assumption. my first comedian I had as a fave was Lois Anderson when I was a child. Now that's what is wrong with the world is that I felt I had to make that statement. it means there is something wrong with society AND me. If you made that assumption that I prefer racial comedy, you shouldn't have. But at the same time, I should not have had to make that disclaimer statement. I should have just left it as is, and if you made the assumption then that is Your problem. And You are the one with prejudices. But with so many accusations flying around, I FELT I had to. Is that a problem with me, or society, or both? I don't know but it's a problem when we can't just be ourselves or feel we cant.

I like the post made below by thedeadtruth.

originally posted by: youdidntseeme
a reply to: manna2

Having sickle cell disease, is a blood disorder, not a racial disorder. It is not specific to any one particular race, although it is commonly thought to.

Sickle cell trait is more common in certain ethnic groups, including:

African Americans (8 to 10 percent of African Americans have sickle cell trait)
Hispanics
South Asians
Caucasians from southern Europe
People from Middle Eastern countries

Hematologydotorg

The article further goes on to say:

All newborns in the United States are now tested for sickle cell disease and sickle cell trait.

Not just newborns of a certain race, or even from a certain genealogy stemming from the above list. All newborns.

Notice the common thing in the groups that are listed above: they all come from areas in the world where malaria has always been endemic. Sickle cell disease is a genetic disease where there is a miscode in the gene that produces hemoglobin--a singe amino acid switch, IIR. Heterozygotes have resistance the disease malaria and have a much milder and even asymptomatic version known as sickle cell trait.

The genetic disease is found largely in people of sub-Saharan African descent. It's northern analog, Thalassemia is endemic to those of Mediterranean descent.

That testing ahs expanded into the general population is more indicative to the fact that, in our society, people very often partner and produce offspring across racial lines than before. Genetically, this is a good thing--mutts tend to be much healthier than purebreds overall.

It's not the physical differences but rather the behavioural ones which should be of concern.

For example, why are blacks overrepresented in crime statistics?

Being that Western governments are hell-bent on filling up their countries with African migrants, this is a question which deserves - though probably will never get - a speedy and truthful answer.

originally posted by: CJCrawley
It's not the physical differences but rather the behavioural ones which should be of concern.

For example, why are blacks overrepresented in crime statistics?

Being that Western governments are hell-bent on filling up their countries with African migrants, this is a question which deserves - though probably will never get - a speedy and truthful answer.

A speedy and truthful answer.

Ever since welfare was initiated, mothers were better off without fathers. Welfare encouraged single motherhood. Fathers who early on disappeared from their children's lives to give them a "better life". What was once a good thing destroyed families. Soon generations followed that grew up in homes where single motherhood and child abandonment of fathers became a norm.

As a Human Development professor I can tell you that no matter what the race, children raised without 2 parents have a much higher chance of becoming antisocial and criminal. The mothers who do their best but are stressed and have to work long hours simply can not give the same emotional energy as two parents. A child raised in a 2 adult home, be it mother and her mother/parents etc who have a permanent emotional investment in the child turns out well, a child raised by just the mother no matter how hard she tries has a hugely increased risk of criminality. This is true for every racial group.


Then feminism went from the vote, to equal rights, to equal pay (all good things) to "women don't need men", which in turn led to the myth that single parent homes are the same as 2 parent homes and the glamorization of single motherhood. I'll probably get a lot of flack for that one.

Unfortunately, at the time welfare was instituted many black families were very poor due to a combination of a lack of educational opportunities, institutional racism, bigotry. Then welfare inadvertently created the multigenerational black subculture of single families, clustered in housing projects. At the same time absentee fatherhood became the norm for many and when women went to work, the children were not only without 2 parents, but with a overworked and exhausted single mother doing her best.

The government, specifically the Democrats have benefited from creating this underclass who blindly vote them in despite the fact that Democrats opposed ending slavery, were the majority of KKK members. Up until a few years ago when the last of them died off there were Democrats in congress who had been KKK leaders. But somehow the Democrats convinced the underclass that they would give them more money if voted in, however, the money came with strings attached, only single mothers could get the money, men then had no reason to be attached to their children or to support their children.

In other words, the federal government structured welfare so that intentionally or unintentionally, it encouraged men to abandon their families and women to be single parents, greatly increasing the chance that their offspring, especially males would be criminal. Historically and regardless of race, when men live without families, they become violent and criminal.

So the truthful answer is - it has nothing to do with race -

it has to do with Eugenics, like Planned Parenthood (whose goal was to wipe out "colored people" through abortion)
if you think the government did it on purpose

or it is an unintended consequence of bad big government policies
if you think the government is good big brother or daddy in this instance.

Also, in this climate, encouraging racism has become quite beneficial for the Democratic party, to see an end to racism would be bad for Democrats. So pointing out the racial groups who are overly represented in the antisocial groups is because of racism is a dodge. It is because of bad government policy encouraging single parent households and the historical context of when these policies were instituted.

My question to you: why do you seek to differentiate yourself from your siblings? There is no difference between you and Mother Teresa, or Jeffrey Dahmer beyond that of ancestry, chemistry and culture. The latter of which are under your influence should you choose to influence them.

Deny Ignorance = deny finite labels

a reply to: depleteduranium92

Any two (for example) Caucasian males will also exhibit distinct features. Nose shape, hair density, muscle mass, brain volume, even susceptibility to various diseases. We might have different colors on our feathers or variations in size or even in instinctual responses but we are all cut from the same genetic foundation. The problem we actually have is cultural variation.

In no way do i mean to suggest that we should all be the same but we shouldn't pretend that we are all suited to share the same space socially or politically.

originally posted by: Ninipe
You need that to feel superior, huh? Let me tell you something: You are not!. And a thread like this basically disqualifies you as a member of the team "humans". In my opinion, I should add, although you don't deserve that kind of politeness. f'*#+&racist

I'm sorry that the concept of population specific traits, due to eons of geographically isolated populations interbreeding boggles your mind. Maybe if you remove your head from your 3rd point of contact and stopped playing your tattered race card you could learn something.

Off topic: I'm a 'f'*#+&racist'? I'm white, my wife is black and our daughter is mixed. So you can go rectally fist your mother.

originally posted by: gosseyn

Races are a made up categorisation.

I suppose you could over-simplify it by saying that.

The people who made up that categorisation have made a choice between all the visible differences.

The categories were created by measuring the expressed skeletal traits of thousands of known individuals, creating a wide cross section of various populations.

And all you are saying is "look at their choices of differences!". Do you get it ?

I guess not.

Why don't you ask yourself why they didn't chose other differences like the color of the eyes, the length of the arms or legs, or any other visible differences ?

Often forensic pathologists are given a sack of loose bones. Squishy eyes are generally some of the first soft tissue that liquifies/gets eaten by insect/animal activity.

During your forensic course, do you say to yourself "ah! this man is taller than 2 meters, he must be from another race, like all the others who are 2 meters tall! I am a genius!".

No, but if the skull has a wide nasal opening, the presence of a pronounced external occipital protuberance and long nasal spine the charts that have been compiled over two centuries tells me with a relatively good degree of accuracy that I am dealing with a Negroid.

If I have a skull with a narrow nasal opening, little to no external occipital protuberance and a relatively short nasal spine i have most likely the skull of a Caucasoid.

Moreover, there are far more invisible differences than visible to the naked eye. And it is a known fact that genetically humans are far more alike between them than say chimpanzees.

And your point?

All I am pointing out is that one can definitively discern physiological differences between the the different races when looking at the individual populations when averaged out. How that somehow gets twisted in to racism boggles my mind.

a reply to: Lipton

Rather than let this thread degenerate into what it is, can you list cranial differences for all races please. I find you posts fascinating. This is, weirdly, a taboo subject, made taboo by political correctness which is a crock of dog poo.

There are differences and we should be aware of and celebrate those differences rather than what we have now, being a closet full of racists trying hard not to be found in the said closet.

This thread is a real indictment of society when scientific questions are hounded just because of the topic being discussed.

So in forensic science, how do you tell if a skull is say Asian and how many divisions (races) does forensics divide skulls into. Thank you for your input.

P

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: Lipton

Rather than let this thread degenerate into what it is, can you list cranial differences for all races please.

So in forensic science, how do you tell if a skull is say Asian and how many divisions (races) does forensics divide skulls into. Thank you for your input.

I have a BS in Criminal Justice w/an emphasis in Law Enforcement, but I really wanted to be involved on the 'forensics' side of the house, not the 'mistaking a cell phone for a gun and shoot an unarmed civilian 17 times in the back' side. The bulk of my elective credits came from the Southern Institute of Forensic Science, which have a very respected cadre of instructors with decades of field experience.

Here's the Basics of Facial Reconstruction of a Caucasoid male in his 30's. Here's a Wiki Article that gives a very good analysis of the estimation of the nose. Also worth noting, you can see the way the jaw collapses in on itself when it is lacking the support of the teeth. One will naturally clench their gums in lightly, much like how you lightly rest your upper and lower teeth on each other, which purses the lips together and makes them thinner (age also lowers the amount the fatty tissue in the lips so they will become thinner as you age.

Here FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY is a really good starting place to get your feet wet in regards to facial reconstruction and Here is just a small sampling of the flesh depth that correlate to particular cranial landmarks.

As far as the division of races', they generally are broken down in to three categories (yes race baiters these are scientific labels), Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid. These terms were coined during the early 19th Century and have stuck; at the time asians were called 'mongoloids' (a slur), blacks were called 'negros', and whites 'caucasians' in honor of Circassian Beauties.

I guess Anthropologists haven't boarded the PC train yet...

Anyways at the time the three groups; Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid, all were still relatively closed populations. Traveling was limited, so one tended to marry and breed with ones local population (inter-generational likelihood of population traits would be expressed at a greater rate in one group than the others). For example the trademark almond eyes that 99% of Mongoloids have, the pronounced brow, forward protruding mandible and the bony 'lump' (external occipital protuberance) of Negroids and the narrow nasal opening, smoother frontal bone in Caucasoids.

These tree groups allowed for easy access to cadavers, as large populations mean lots of the same kind of people dying. So early artists and scientists, in order to create better sculptures and to learn more about the body and human variations) began to take measurements of the body at various points. Eventually there became a standardized method and a certain points from which to take measurements of flesh depth. This is accomplished by taking a needle holding it over a candle in order to cover it with soot, inserting it in to the flesh until one hits bone then measuring the clean portion of the needle. Now we use CT scans and xrays on living volunteers to create even more exact tables, as death does cause some distortion in the skin and the needle method also caused the skin to compress from the puncturing ( causes over and under estimations).

Now multiply this method by thousands of times for the three main population groups and average them all together, while throwing out statistical outliers. What you get are tables that will allow you to, at a very good approximation, to create a vanilla likeness of what an individual may of looked like in life, by utilizing what his/her racially similar peers looked like.

There is some data out there for Native Americans, Inuits and Middle Easterners (though as a whole they typically fall in to either the Mongoloid, or a hybridization of Mongoloid/Negroid tables). Further on mixed-race individuals, the process of reconstruction is the same, only you would consult multiple tables to approximate the portion of anatomy you are working on that as closely correlates with the measurements (a black man with a narrow nasal opening and short nasal spine would get a Caucasoid nose, a white woman with a protruding mandible would get a Negroid jaw) and you then smooth these in with the rest of the facial features just as nature would.

I also just read The affect of tissue depth variation on craniofacial reconstructions and it have a very thorough history of facial reconstruction, but is a study of the facial flesh depth variation between emaciated, normal and obese individuals, if you're interested in the history of facial reconstruction.