Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

How Many Races Are There?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I strongly and passionately disagree

Seriously, I've been taking issue with the need for equalization for a long time. Being of mixed race myself I have great appreciation for differences in color, culture and abilities of various races. And my use of the word race has nothing at all to do with racism or a "feeling of superiority".

I travel a lot and on my travels I want to experience people who are different than those people of my race and culture. When in Asia, I eat Asian food, enjoy Asian customs, get into Asian mentality. When in Africa, likewise. In the process of doing this I have discovered that there are huge differences, and that there are different races and cultures of people.

As I see it there are two mainstream viewpoints and both are false:

1. We are all the same

2. We are all different and thats bad or We are all different and some are superior to others.

The third viewpoint, which does not get much airtime is:

3. We are all different and thats great!!!!

The third viewpoint allows for a unity without suppressing diversity.

The idea that oneness requires sameness is the cause of many problems we've faced throughout history. I can be different than someone and even in total disagreement with anothers lifestyle and beliefs but still respect and appreciate that difference.

The pressure of equalization promoted by the "politically correct" lacks such a distinction. It will try to make women be like men or blacks be like whites and vice versa.

Black people...and yes they are black...are different. But that does not mean anything negative. It means that if they honor their roots, their culture, their way, their style, their passions, they will integrate much more easily than if they are forced to behave like the white american. And vice-versa. Unfortunately, nowadays it is almost forbidden to see differences.

In the analogy of oneness, every puzzle piece is unique. No puzzle piece is the same as another. And yet, placed properly, they all form ONE puzzle.

[edit on 5-6-2009 by Skyfloating]


posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 10:17 AM
reply to post by masqua

And on a more general note, independent of my last post, in essence I agree with the premise of this thread and the points you brought forward. Im only trying to add a little distinction that allows for some diversity without degradation.

Originally posted by masqua

I do have a problem with the continued use of the word 'race' as a distinguishing classification for physiological features. Also, I take offence at the idea that to NOT be willing to dispense with racial profiling is (as you state inversely) somehow unhealthy in the 21st century. I believe the exact opposite to be true.

I guess we could drop the word race. I dont know if it would stop people from looking down at each other though.

People feeling inferior/superior permeates not only the race-issue but any other level of society. And its cause are not specific words, imo, but rather insecurities and lack of education.

[edit on 6-6-2009 by Skyfloating]

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 10:19 AM

Gradually I learned that the system-of-schooling as imposed by a white-society is not appropriate for people of other cultures. Seeing them all as the same and requiring the same was not helping. I noticed that asians, persians, arabs and blacks process information differently than whites. I even noticed differences among whites: Russians process information differently than Germans and Germans process info differently than the British.

All right but how do assume it is related to "race" ? Which differences in processing the information ?

German or english grammar is very different. I don't know which language you taught but what is difficult when you learn a language is to "get out" of your language mindset and learn another way of constructing sentences.

If you speak a Latin language it's fairly easy to learn another Latin language. It's much more difficult to learn a Germanic one. I don't understand what you mean by processing. I think there is a difference in how difficult it is to adapt to a new grammar according to how far it is from your mother tongue's one.
Raise an Asian, Persian, Arab, Black in a "white" society with a Western mother tongue, he will process languages like a Westerners. Examples of it are everywhere in Europe. It has to do with culture not race. Actually, you said it

edit : I forgot one thing I wanted to say. There cultural differences in teaching and different cultural differences in the relation from the teacher to the pupil. Your exemples with color and music are very interesting because it is intuitive maybe a remainder of instincts. I don't remember the name of a calculation genius with ADD, roughly, he had explained he associated each number with a color and each color with a feeling. That way he could remember huge numbers and calculate easily. It's no more abstract numbers, it turns into very concrete feelings in his mind.

[edit on 6-6-2009 by Manouche]

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 10:22 AM

There was a people who called themeselves, "Sag-giga."


I would imagine it is natural, this division, I think people have been dividing themselves up into the so called tribe, like, forever.

The Europeans just put a scientific twist to it when Darwin came along,

But then even the Hindu's defined superiority by shades of color.

Hindu caste system

Maybe that is were Madam Blavatsky got her strange views on race.. since she Europeanized Buddhism and Hinduism bring the teaching back with her from India.

So if you are thinking the white Europeans had a monopoly on racism, well, it goes as far back as the oldest civilization on the planet.

However I am sure there is a way to blame it on "white" European Christians.

[edit on 103030p://bSaturday2009 by Stormdancer777]

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 10:22 AM
reply to post by Manouche

When learning a new language its important to get out of your cultural mindset into that of the other, thats right.

But whats also correct is that I would have to adapt my teaching strategies depending on who I was teaching. And in that way there was no culture that was "inferior in learning", as some believe.

Understanding how something different is appropriate each race/culture is the solution to all the worlds ills, imo.

[edit on 6-6-2009 by Skyfloating]

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 10:25 AM

Originally posted by genius/idoit
reply to post by weedwhacker

You sold me on this

we, no matter what we look like, we can interbreed.

can't argue with facts,bravo!

That's not necessarily true, if you look at RH negative factor, and even in ancient times people married according to bloodlines.

But it is a great topic.

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 10:28 AM

Originally posted by AshleyD

So why is it acceptable to classify plants and animals by races/breeds but not for humans when, according to science, the reason humans, animals, and plants are different were caused by the same means?

[edit on 6/6/2009 by AshleyD]

Because then we would have to admit that certain 'breeds' of humans are better at some things, and worse at others. It flies in the face of the political correctness that we all are capable of the same things. While we can say that a certain breed of dog is prone to biting, we cannot say that a certain breed of human is prone to criminal behavior. So we say that 'this' is their/our culture, or 'that' is their/our culture.

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 10:30 AM

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by SLAYER69

No, what I meant is less complicated. What Im saying is that seeing difference does not automatically mean one sees one as superior to the other.

Example: I see the color red and blue. I see the difference but that does not automatically mean one is superior to the other in an absolute sense.

I say so because the OP...and many others...claim that seeing racial differences = seeing superior vs. inferior.

Now back to red and blue: One is not superior to the other, but may be more appropriate than the other depending on whether Im painting an ocean or a red dress.

I think my assumption of the OP is of "race" meaning people are different as in house cats are different than lions, cats but not the same creature. When looking at humans, we have ONE race, with many ethnical differences.

The power of Illusion, which is all "race" is, as we are all one race, human with different ethnic backgrounds. We do have many many cultural differences, but one race.

Race and Ethnicity are actually not the same, though many people use them interchangeably. ethnicity (n) a term which represents social groups with a shared history, sense of identity, geography and cultural roots. race (n) a human population considered distinct based on physical characteristics.

So really what you have run into in my thinking is many different "ethnic" groups, not many different "races", as I believe as the OP, ONE RACE which is the human race.


Harm None

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 10:33 AM
reply to post by Stormdancer777

A very good point, dancer. I regret my choice of the term 'interbreed' though. I thought about possible blood factors that prohibit certain people from achieving viability...but, would need a biologist or fertility expert to explain properly!! On that note, I have always wondered about the differences in our (Human's) blood. It certainly is not a "race" distinction, of course. More of another sign of minor divergences due to geographical isolation of certain groups over the course of thousands of generations.

Again, the video "Journey of Man" (I cannot recommend it enough, it seems) goes a long way in providing some explanations, at least from a mitochondrial DNA standpoint.

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 10:33 AM
reply to post by Skyfloating

Then I understand and fully agree

Except for the term "race", I think it's culture differences.
Once you understand another culture, it opens a full range of new options and interactions. It's an interesting and mind opening experience.

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 10:47 AM
reply to post by AshleyD

Both humans and horses can have their traits change through adaptation or selective breeding.

So why is it acceptable to classify plants and animals by races/breeds but not for humans when, according to science, the reason humans, animals, and plants are different were caused by the same means?

Thanks, Ashley!

Yes, Humans and horses will change through adaptation and/or selective breeding. However when it comes to Humans, the notion of "selective breeding" becomes a very, very touchy ethics concern. (Think of NAZIs, and eugenics...)

The Human's ability to select certain desired traits in our domesticated animals isn't considered an ethics violation (although I'm sure there are certain people who would disagree with that, they would be in the minority though).

As to Humans, and natural 'adaptation'...your example of different Human faces showed that surface features and certain biological mechanisms will vary, even within one species, purely by influence of environment.
EDIT because I meant to add, here, it is fascinating how we Humans can remember faces so readily....even if extremely different than what we 'know', or are accustomed to in experience, we still know a Human face, when we see one. Shows how important the face, and its expressions, are in our evolutionary history. By comparison, it is much harder for us to distinguish individual Ape faces, for instance, within a sub-species group, absent some unique identifying marks or coloration.

Just as, your bveloved pet, a cat or dog, may have a very similar-looking 'twin', indistinguishable by a casual observer, you have a bond with your pet, and can tell the differnce. (end edit).

High-altitude dwellers, extremely cold environment dwellers, hot tropics, dry, humid....sunlight, less sunlight...etc. These factors favor individuals with traits that allow them to be best suited. Those that survive, pass those traits onwards to their children.

The difference is...we don't SEE these things happening to ourselves as readily as we do in, say, horses -- or cats, dogs, etc because of our lifespans being so much longer.

Again, my take on the ideas. I'm no expert on the matters...

[edit on 6/6/0909 by weedwhacker]

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 11:36 AM
Origins of Modern Humans: Multiregional or Out of Africa?

I don't have a problem with diversity in fact I think it is pretty cool, The world is made interesting by its diverse and many cultures, I think it would be pretty boring if we were all clones of one another.

I don't know what this means but have fun with it, lol

Accelerated genetic drift on chromosome X during the human dispersal out of Africa
Alon Keinan1,2, James C Mullikin3, Nick Patterson2 & David Reich1,2

Comparisons of chromosome X and the autosomes can illuminate differences in the histories of males and females as well as shed light on the forces of natural selection. We compared the patterns of variation in these parts of the genome using two datasets that we assembled for this study that are both genomic in scale. Three independent analyses show that around the time of the dispersal of modern humans out of Africa, chromosome X experienced much more genetic drift than is expected from the pattern on the autosomes. This is not predicted by known episodes of demographic history, and we found no similar patterns associated with the dispersals into East Asia and Europe. We conclude that a sex-biased process that reduced the female effective population size, or an episode of natural selection unusually affecting chromosome X, was associated with the founding of non-African populations.

population bottleneck
Genetic drift and multiregional

Mr. Gates says his concerns date back to 2000, when a company told him his maternal ancestry could most likely be traced back to Egypt, probably to the Nubian ethnic group. Five years later, however, a test by a second company startled him. It concluded that his maternal ancestors were not Nubian or even African, but most likely European.

Native American DNA Links to Six "Founding Mothers"

Who was the first?

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 11:46 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker


I wonder why ancient peoples wanted to keep their bloodlines pure and when it started I am thinking some form of eugenics has been going on, forever.

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 12:39 PM
Genomics refutes an exclusively African origin of humans.

Eswaran V, Harpending H, Rogers AR.

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India 208016.

Ten years ago, evidence from genetics gave strong support to the "recent African origin" view of the evolution of modern humans, which posits that Homo sapiens arose as a new species in Africa and subsequently spread, leading to the extinction of other archaic human species. Subsequent data from the nuclear genome not only fail to support this model, they do not support any simple model of human demographic history. In this paper, we study a process in which the modern human phenotype originates in Africa and then advances across the world by local demic diffusion, hybridization, and natural selection. While the multiregional model of human origins posits a number of independent single locus selective sweeps, and the "out of Africa" model posits a sweep of a new species, we study the intermediate case of a phenotypic sweep. Numerical simulations of this process replicate many of the seemingly contradictory features of the genetic data, and suggest that as much as 80% of nuclear loci have assimilated genetic material from non-African archaic humans.

Before clovis

The Fenn Cache

British Have Changed Little Since Ice Age, Gene Study Says

Many historians now believe subsequent invaders from mainland Europe had little genetic impact on the British.

The notion that large-scale migrations caused drastic change in early Britain has been widely discredited, according to Simon James, an archaeologist at Leicester University, England.

"The gene pool of the island has changed, but more slowly and far less completely than implied by the old invasion model," James writes in an article for the website BBC History.

Linking of Languages May Speak Volumes

Results of the worldwide genetic sampling project show a strong correlation between genetic diversity and geographic distance. The closer modern people live to one another, as measured along the ancient migration routes that led humans out of Africa, the more similar is their DNA.


"When we searched over 4,000 points around the world, we found that no point outside of Africa had as high a fit as any point inside of Africa," Rosenberg said. "So this seems to support an 'Out of Africa' historical model for human evolution."Genetic data suggest what scientists call a serial founder effect. The theory holds that each group of migrating humans begat a later, smaller subgroup that subsequently continued humankind's journey around the globe.

Each time a subset migrated onward, genetic diversity narrowed. As a result, naturally occurring random genetic variations—also known as genetic drift—increasingly influenced the genetic makeup of gradually more homogenous populations.

Genetic diversity was found to be lowest in the Americas, which are widely believed to be the last continents settled by humans.

The team concludes that perhaps 75 percent of humankind's modern genetic variation is the result of random genetic drift.

The researchers suggest that only 25 percent of our genetic diversity stems from the evolutionary process of natural selection—though such a number is still significant.

"Undoubtedly natural selection has played an important role in altering our genome during this migration out of Africa," Ramachandran said. "But it is kind of new to think that genetic drift might have been responsible for this much of human genetic variation."

I lost the link

Humans in England May Go Back 700,000 Years

Did Early Humans First Arise in Asia, Not Africa?

Did Early Humans First Arise in Asia, Not Africa?

Nicholas Bakalar
for National Geographic News

December 27, 2005

Genetic Structure Of Human Populations,

Ancient Basques were not isolated (mtDNA)
By Dienekes

The Longue Durée of Genetic Ancestry: Multiple Genetic Marker Systems and Celtic Origins on the Atlantic Facade of Europe
Brian McEvoy,1 Martin Richards,2 Peter Forster,3 and Daniel G. Bradley1

Search for Adam

CHENNAI: The discovery of a Neolithic stone celt, a hand-held axe, with the Indus script on it at Sembian-Kandiyur in Tamil Nadu is, according to Iravatham Mahadevan, "a major discovery because for the first time a text in the Indus script has been found in the State on a datable artefact, which is a polished neolithic celt." He added: "This confirms that the Neolithic people of Tamil Nadu shared the same language family of the Harappan group, which can only be Dravidian. The discovery provides the first evidence that the Neolithic people of the Tamil country spoke a Dravidian language." Mr. Mahadevan, an eminent expert on the subject, estimated the date of the artefact with the Indus script between 2000 B.C. and 1500 B.C.

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 12:45 PM
Negative Blood type

Remember, never trust a scientist or a human.

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 01:08 PM
Maybe we should change the word "race" to "breed". there are several breeds of humans, but only one human race.
Just like the dog, there are several breeds of dogs, but it is a dog regardless.
This might make more sense and could not possibly be viewed as racist.
We would be two "races" if the neanderthals (I believe those were our descendants?) have not gone extinct when humans appeared. I belive there was some sort of war between neanderthals and human but I'm not sure.
Anyway, breed would be a more fitting term when trying to categorize people by skin color.

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 02:22 PM
Well, there aren't different "races" per see, but YES there are different phenotypes (genetic traits dealings with appearance) within the human species. Just like you have different breeds of dogs, your pitbulls, rocks, labs and such. Mankind is pretty much the same.

There are different genetic differences between asians, europeans and africans (just listing some, not all) not just phenotypes. Europeans and her descendants have certain genetic traits that differ from Africans..our genetic knowledge hasn't progressed to the point that someone looks at some dna and says yea this dude or dudette is such and such or maybe it has i dunno.

To answer your question chief, there are to many..way to many. And they aren't "races" that's just a word coined by scientist back to the day, but different ethnic groups and phenotypes. Contrary to what some people may belief there are genetic differences between the different ethnic groups.

But one has to remember that we are all human and deep down inside and we are all the same, we just look different.

It doesn't take long for an ethnic group to emerge. Just look at the physical characteristics of white europeans and white americans. Not to mention the differences between black americans and black africans, we look different and that's ALL it is..we just look different with a little genetic tweaking due to natural selection.

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 03:46 AM
reply to post by Skyfloating

I guess we could drop the word race. I dont know if it would stop people from looking down at each other though.

Yeah I tend to agree. I think people will tear each other from limb to limb over all kinds of reasons, but I tend to think these are genetic traits that have been handed down to us from our microbial past. We have these traits kind of hard wired into us. We still make use of the oldest parts of our brains the most, and hence most of our brains have functions that are still evolving, but I don't think if we want us to evolve faster that we will. It seems wishful thinking for us to assume because we feel tolerant of others doesn't mean they feel the same for us and not just for "race" reasons, but a whole variety of reasons.

Whatever the higher circuits that we have programmed into are to be used for, most of us about 90% only use about 3 out of 8 circuits in our brains, I also tend to think drugs are illegal in most countries on the basis that they actually speed up our evolutionary processes in the brain and hence create escape mechanisims from the ways we currently are manipulated and controlled by our governments.

So, most of our arguments tend to be over differences and territory, the basic survival mechanisms that we inherited from our microbe ancestors whom never heard of the term "race" or "racism" but nonetheless robotically practice these behaviors regardless of what terms we use to describe them, these are genetically programmed behaviors that enabled greater survival. Even sponges can distinguish between different colors amongst themselves and prefer the color most in resemblance to themselves.

See these videos for more info...

Here also a link to read....

Geography and history shape genetic differences in humans

New research indicates that natural selection may shape the human genome much more slowly than previously thought. Other factors -- the movements of humans within and among continents, the expansions and contractions of populations, and the vagaries of genetic chance - have heavily influenced the distribution of genetic variations in populations around the world. The study, conducted by a team from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the University of Chicago, the University of California and Stanford University, is published June 5 in the open-access journal PLoS Genetics.

[edit on 7-6-2009 by bubbabuddha]

[edit on 7-6-2009 by bubbabuddha]

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 01:35 PM
reply to post by bubbabuddha

Thank you for the videos and the link in your post above. they are very instructive to the topic addressed here.

Howard Blum (?), the speaker certainly explains a lot about ourselves in the videos and finds similar traits within even the most simple forms of life.

I encourage anyone interested in the topic of racism to view all three presented above.

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 05:06 PM

Originally posted by masqua
It has nothing to do with biological differences and everything to do with societal inequality. Suppression through discrimination is what causes poverty and poverty is the primary cause of criminal activity.

I applaud you with some reservation. Your last sentence smacks of possible racism - "suppression through discrimination" What kind of discrimination might you be referring to? If you say based on skin color - then you just bought into racism hook, line and sinker.

Suppression or discrimination do not cause poverty. Poverty is in many ways, the physical manifestation of a state of mind.

Where resources are few, and food, water, clothing and shelter are difficult to find - then you might say - there is poverty. You would be partially right.

However, poverty may persist into states of plenty - where it's ongoing influence cannot be discarded because poverty is enclosed within cultural tradition and myth.

Having said that - I will not deny that some regions in Africa for instance suffer extreme poverty that is created by military, legal and authoritarian interference in the natural order of those communities. Zimbabwe is a classic example, where landowners (white) were forced off agricultural land, but those taking the land were unable to make use of the land to grow food. The reasons for that were numerous - lack of skills, lack of desire and also very tellingly - lack of credit. The lack of credit could probably be considered one of the main issues, and was a specific program implemented by the enemies of mankind - the Central Banking cartel.

It was the Christian religion that first expounded the righteousness of poverty. This is an attempt to undermine the authority of the senses and reason - how is starving to death for no apparent reason noble? Well, when the rich are living off your blood - then it is in their interests to tell you your reward is in heaven.

In Western societies the main reason for certain CULTURAL groups to get locked into poverty, is that they are unable to realize that it is their CULTURE- not race - that is preventing them from integrating socially and escaping poverty.

Without the correct identification of the problem - it can become unsolvable, and the poverty culture itself begins to breed the racist ideology - "Its the white man, pushing us down." and so on.

The cure is simply to realize that certain behaviors, codes of dress, mannerisms and language have to be changed to integrate socially, gaining a better education and access to better paying work.

Another key issue is the need to get out of the poverty mindset - which never saves, or plans for the future - because it has never really had enough to survive on today. This is best understood by reviewing the urban legend of the lottery winners who have spent their entire fortunes in a couple of years, and are now penniless. The myth mirrors fact - without any training or knowledge in managing money - then getting out of poverty is a difficult business.

Some of this I present from personal lessons - when I was 10yrs old, the floor of my three sided corrugated iron shed was concreted for the first time - I had a real floor, not rugs over packed dirt. Even in my late teens I at times still needed to get food from the Red Cross to survive (I had no family at all that could help me with anything - even food or shelter). At 36 yrs old I retired, financially secure.

Poverty in affluent societies is a CULTURAL problem, and must be addressed by addressing the cultural gap between those in poverty and the rest of society.

Poverty can be a trap - but it can also be a great teacher - if only its hard lessons are learned.

[edit on 7-6-2009 by Amagnon]

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution