yh "negroid" Was used to describe sub saharan africans once, old ppl may still use this. but how is it believable about those 3 races? at least you know different now, I hope. and the whole thing about coming together to feel good about ur race is bs imo.

so im jus askin, are you gonna read some other history books on europe othen than ww2 etc. or did u jus start this thread for shock value and see what menace would say back lol.

this isn't just pertinent to Spanish anarchy as an example. there's been research done on this. it is (and i hate using this term because it is so often abused) human nature to assemble and work together in groups and without it, emotional distress is a common occurrence.

that's based on an old, outdated anthropological model, that eventually evolved into another (now outdated as well) model based on 5 races. today races aren't even recognized anthropologically. we only recognize cultures. the old 3 race model included negroid, caucasoid and mongoloid but was replaced by Carleton S. Coon's 5 race model which was an expanded form that included Australoids and capoids and replaced negroids with congoids. lastly, this short paragraph explains why these models, and race in general, have recently been losing steam and are now widely not recognized:

"With the discovery that many blood proteins vary consistently among populations, followed by the discovery of the DNA code, the invention of the polymerase chain reaction that amplifies trace amounts of DNA, and the decoding of the human genome, phylogeographers largely switched away from craniofacial anthropometry whenever DNA is available. This is because DNA findings are more replicable."

the science behind this is a sub category found within anthropology called craniofacial anthropometry. it is used mainly by archaeologists and cultural and forensic anthropologists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craniofacial_anthropometry

also, the "Challenges" portion of the above wikipedia article gives insight as to why racial classifications are scientifically incorrect:

"Although the categorization of a skull is clearly given arbitrary parameters, it will not locate the owners geographic ancestry concretely all the time. While one's perception of an individual's race can be affected by cultural aspects, the "race" of his skull is less ambiguous.

As Dr. Stan Rhine put it, "...it is clear that race does mean different things to different people. In the context of forensic anthropology, the term race is unambiguous."[6] Although their craniofacial race based on skull indices is unambiguous, it will not pin point their geographic origins accurately all the time due to variation in skulls within a geographic region.

While this method produces useful results for the population of the United States, it is likely that it would not be reliable for populations from other countries[7] or historical periods.[8] This is because the United States has traditionally had groups whose ancestries came from geographically distant locations, and which have generally remained endogamous in this country, for social reasons. As more immigrants from in between regions and as Americans become more racially mixed, such craniofacial identification is problematic.

Classification by craniofacial anthropometry does not necessarily coincide with genetic ancestry or social self-identification. For example, about one-third of so-called "White" Americans have detectable African DNA markers.[9]

And about five percent of so-called "Black" Americans have no detectable "Negroid" traits at all, neither craniofacial nor in their DNA.[10] In short, given three Americans, one who self-identifies and is socially accepted as U.S. White, another one who self-identifies and is socially accepted as U.S. Black, and one who self-identifies and is socially accepted as U.S. Hispanic, and given that they have precisely the same Afro-European mix of ancestries (one "mulatto" grandparent), there is quite literally no objective test that will identify their U.S. endogamous group membership without an interview.[11]

In practice, the application of such forensic criteria ultimately comes down to whether the skull "looks Negroid," "Caucasoid," or "Mongoloid" in the eye of each U.S. forensic practitioner."

horrible things only occur within these parameters when we base these groups around differences from other groups. the point of grouping is not to compete with outside groups, but rather to assemble in order to cooperate. a team is an example of a group. and for argument's sake, a company is actually an example of a group as well.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

And what do you mean am I going to read more books about history lol? I hate WW2 shit. It gets old.

for the last bit, I meant would u be intrested in reading anything other than ww2. i think i wrote that clear enough.

i feel what u sayin in that first paragraph. truth is though, most americans probably lost their european heritage, when they moved over there in the 1800s and back, didnt most europeans, along with africans forced to have a anglo-saxon surname... ??? like when america was being founded if ur surname was latin, slavic or more germanic u would have to change that to more british, like william smith etc lol.

along with the language, most cultural traditions pretty much left cos europeans saw it as a fresh start, so they started their own culture, more so after the end of british rule. u have ur irish, polish and italians etc in america but they werent treated to good now were they, cos there catholic and have there own culture. so white americans have always pushed away its european ancestory to my view. u had eboyd saying he has his bulgarian tradiorions or whatever it was.. but what anoys me is when these same americans who say bs about europe etc wanna claim like, ooh look at the greeks and romans werent they so smart and brave, thry looked like me (not) thats my ancestors.... when their damn ancestors were probably from austria. (who has also had famous ppl from 17-19th cent that are important to our colleges today. jus ask i can name i think). but what i mean is, europeans dont claim other european history, im not related to no papadopalis... so why is a anglo saxon slavic lookin mothafucka called smith in america doing this. im goin off topic now, but if you wanna know european histry, pick up a damn book or just read something online. like i say, pick a century, field and area and some of us can point u in the right direction. if u travel to eruope u can pick up a few traditions, come to amsterdam and blaze for starters... go to barcelona or rome to see culture in the city etc.

so which of these 5 races would Carleton S. C put this palestinian kid under? his full of bs dont no why u copied n pasted any of his writings.

is he white black mongliod.. or Australoids and capoids lol.

i think semetic is the world used today, well jews have nearly hijacked that word with their wishy wash reverse racism.

i was gonna make a new thread but though id post it in here.
so a few years ago, jessica alba says she doesnt want to be considered latina, cos her dad is 2nd generation mexican, his parents were from mexico. so j. alba's dad was born in america and didnt teach her spanish. j. alba's mum is french/canadian.
so she said she dont wanna be known as a latina, and just american.
http://www.mediatakeout.com/2010....na.html

now in 09 she went on some show, and they said she is 13% native indian and 87% european blood in a dna test.
wonderin what the ppl makin those comments in the other link think now.