Quote (J-Breakz)
oh jeeze, just go back in time n live in ur spanish anarchy that u want so bad
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.
Quote (ilikebacon3000)
The only reason I believed her about the 3 race theory is because it actually sounded kinda believable. I mean it's not too far fetched in my opinion.
that's based on an old, outdated anthropological model, that eventually evolved into another (now outdated as well) model based on 5 races.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."
Quote (J-Breakz)
Yeah because ppl are insecure with themselves so they need to feel like their part of something thats bigger than them. I understand it, I just personally try to discourage it because even though you guys say it can be a great thing it can also be a horrible thing.
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.
