Pre-Columbus Food

[Micamo]

Etherman, race is a social construct and thus your use of terms like "Mongoloid" and "Austroloid" in a debate is frankly quite offensive and is of the same obselete 19th century anthropological psuedoscience that people used to justify the putting of a human being in a zoo.
Besides, why would one care what (socially constructed)" race" the Amerinds are, as race had no meaning to the peoples of the Americas in 1491 in the way you understand it, by means of which we demote them and refuse to understand them on their terms, and that is the true purpose of archaeology.

Acknowledging that someone is different from you, and using these differences to demote them to sub-human status, are two very different things.

[Yačay256]

@Micamo: Correct, they are 2 different things; what I was referring to was the fact that Europeans used faulty "science" to justify genocide. No other people used "race" to do so, at least not on anywhere even remotely near in scale: Mao and Pol Pot used ideology and political motivations, for example.

The problem that differentiates the strictly European conception of "Race" from the widespread conception of ethnicity is that the former is based on junk "biology" and the latter is based on culture (thus forcing one to acknowledge the humanity in the latter case as only humans have culture). Thus, race is far more dangerous.

[Yačay256]

Yačay256 wrote:
Furthermore, Etherman, on an actually smaller timescale than that of the population of the Americas, starting around 3,000 or so BCE, the Bantus expanded across most of Southern and Central Africa. Yet, though they originally came from Cameroon and Nigeria, one does not call the Kalanga (who made Great Zimbabwe) "Nigerian" or "Cameroonian"; rather, one recognizes them as a quite distantly related offshoot from their original Proto-Bantu ancestors. Nor does one call Shaka a "Bantu", except in specialized instances, but an umZulu. Likewise, why call Pakal the Great an "Ainu" or an "Ainu descendant" when clearly the differences between these two groups of people, related or not, are drastic to the point of rendering such a comparison effectively meaningless.

I'm merely responding to the incorrect claim that the Indians discovered America.

Etherman, you did not respond to what you quoted from my post at all, so please do if you wish to gain any respect whatsoever from me. If you had read my quote, you would realize that I do not even care at this point who was first to the Americas, but who invented writing (Maya or Epi-Olmec), civilization (Norte Chico), aqueducts (Inka),concrete (Tiwanaku), double weave (Paracas), the concept of zero or the world's largest monument (Maya). Thus, Etherman, I ask you: Are you to deny these achievements (and all the others) to the peoples of the Americas,and if so, why?

[Micamo]

@Micamo: Correct, they are 2 different things; what I was referring to was the fact that Europeans used faulty "science" to justify genocide. No other people used "race" to do so, at least not on anywhere even remotely near in scale: Mao and Pol Pot used ideology and political motivations, for example.

I would argue the genocides in Europe were also due to ideology and political motivations. The racial nonsense was mere rhetoric. And while I don't have any hard data on this, I find it very hard to believe racism is only a factor of western cultures.

The problem that differentiates the strictly European conception of "Race" from the widespread conception of ethnicity is that the former is based on junk "biology" and the latter is based on culture (thus forcing one to acknowledge the humanity in the latter case as only humans have culture). Thus, race is far more dangerous.

People of African descent naturally have more melanin in their skin. This is dependent on genetics, not culture. The Africans brought to Europe through the slave trade didn't turn white.

[Yačay256]

@Micamo: What I meant was that Europeans created the concept of race from the reality of differing human phenotypes.

[Micamo]

@Micamo: What I meant was that Europeans created the concept of race from the reality of differing human phenotypes.

This doesn't show how the concept of biological race is incorrect.

[cybrxkhan]

To throw in a bit of something: I would add that the Japanese also had these kinds of racial constructs during World War II, and that even ancient peoples had something like it, although it probably didn't work like it did in, say, 1800s Europe; the Romans, for example, distinguished between people who lived in (mainly) northern and eastern Europe, in Africa, and in the Mediterranean - they said that the Europeans were stronger but not as smart, the Africans were smarter but not as strong, and the people in the middle, the Mediterranean, i.e. the Romans, were just right. Something like that, I don't remember exactly, unfortunately I don't remember my source(s) for this, so I'll just leave it at that.

[Thakowsaizmu]

@Micamo: Correct, they are 2 different things; what I was referring to was the fact that Europeans used faulty "science" to justify genocide. No other people used "race" to do so, at least not on anywhere even remotely near in scale: Mao and Pol Pot used ideology and political motivations, for example.

The Japanese and their views on the Ainu and Ryukyuan...

Also, race is a myth, so there is that.

[Etherman]

Yačay256 wrote:
Furthermore, Etherman, on an actually smaller timescale than that of the population of the Americas, starting around 3,000 or so BCE, the Bantus expanded across most of Southern and Central Africa. Yet, though they originally came from Cameroon and Nigeria, one does not call the Kalanga (who made Great Zimbabwe) "Nigerian" or "Cameroonian"; rather, one recognizes them as a quite distantly related offshoot from their original Proto-Bantu ancestors. Nor does one call Shaka a "Bantu", except in specialized instances, but an umZulu. Likewise, why call Pakal the Great an "Ainu" or an "Ainu descendant" when clearly the differences between these two groups of people, related or not, are drastic to the point of rendering such a comparison effectively meaningless.

I'm merely responding to the incorrect claim that the Indians discovered America.

Etherman, you did not respond to what you quoted from my post at all, so please do if you wish to gain any respect whatsoever from me.

What you said had nothing to do with what I said. You seem to be implying that I think Kennewick Man is an Ainu, but that's not what I said at all.

If you had read my quote, you would realize that I do not even care at this point who was first to the Americas,

That's fine, but I was talking about who was first to the Americas.

but who invented writing (Maya or Epi-Olmec), civilization (Norte Chico), aqueducts (Inka),concrete (Tiwanaku), double weave (Paracas), the concept of zero or the world's largest monument (Maya). Thus, Etherman, I ask you: Are you to deny these achievements (and all the others) to the peoples of the Americas,and if so, why?

I'm not denying any of these achievements and there's no way to reasonably conclude from anything that I said that I'm trying to do that. You talk a lot about respect and responding to what people say, yet you've ignored what I said and have disrespected me by implying that I've said things that I haven't.

[Etherman]

Etherman, race is a social construct and thus your use of terms like "Mongoloid" and "Austroloid" in a debate is frankly quite offensive

You think that social constructs are offensive??? Are you similarly offended when people say that Barack Obama is the first black President of the US? Are you similarly offended by civil rights legislation that prohibits discrimination based on race?

and is of the same obselete 19th century anthropological psuedoscience that people used to justify the putting of a human being in a zoo.

It's quite a leap to go from Kennewick Man was a caucasion to people should be put in zoos. You're really going to have to fill in those dots for me. And if you're not making that leap then why bring up Ota Benga at all?

Besides, why would one care what (socially constructed)" race" the Amerinds are, as race had no meaning to the peoples of the Americas in 1491 in the way you understand it, by means of which we demote them and refuse to understand them on their terms, and that is the true purpose of archaeology.

How did Americans in 1491 come into any of this? Or the "demotion" of humans? I think the PC meme has got the best of your reasoning abilities.

BTW, cryptozoology may or may not be a conspiracy theory (though I suspect it is) but it certainly is pseudoscientific.

There may be conspiracy theories that incorporate cryptozoology but there's nothing in it inherently conspiracy theory oriented. It's not "certainly" pseudoscience either. It uses scientific methodologies to determine if "mythical" creatures exist. I put mythical in quotes because things like Yeti and the Loch Ness Monster get most of the media coverage, but cryptozoologists also deal with fairly ordinary creatures as well. Animals that were studied by cryptozoologists and later proven to exist include the okapi, mountain gorilla, giant squid, and the Hoan Kiem Turtle.

[Etherman]

Also, race is a myth, so there is that.

Not all scientists agree.

[Thakowsaizmu]

Those scientists are wrong. Many scientists have been wrong. Genetically, if we can procreate with eachother (without technology to help, just before someone tries to use that one), we are the same race. All Humans are Human. Humans and Neanderthals were two different races. Black people and white people are not.

[Etherman]

Those scientists are wrong. Many scientists have been wrong. Genetically, if we can procreate with eachother (without technology to help, just before someone tries to use that one), we are the same race. All Humans are Human. Humans and Neanderthals were two different races. Black people and white people are not.

Race is not the same as species. Think of it like dog breeds. All dogs are dogs, but not all dogs are pitbulls.

[Thakowsaizmu]

Those scientists are wrong. Many scientists have been wrong. Genetically, if we can procreate with eachother (without technology to help, just before someone tries to use that one), we are the same race. All Humans are Human. Humans and Neanderthals were two different races. Black people and white people are not.

Race is not the same as species. Think of it like dog breeds. All dogs are dogs, but not all dogs are pitbulls.

I now understand your thinking better. I will no longer be discussing this topic with you.

[Micamo]

I don't think you can deny that there are geographic clusters of genetic differences. Denying that it's there, because some people have attempted to use these differences to justify sub-human treatment, kinda makes it look like you agree with them.

[Thakowsaizmu]

The genetic differences you are talking about are not as pronounced as most people believe. There are slight variations in human genetic make up due to many factors, too many to get into here, though maybe I should, as another thread has some wacky ideas about evolution as well. Humans are all of the same Species.

The concept of "race", however, is a myth. It is cultural. It is not scientific. For example, two "white" people may, by taking a quick plane ride to Brazil, find that they are no longer the same "race" due to their hair colour not being the same.

The only reason people try to classify "race" by colour or geography is because these are usually the most pronounced phenotypical differences. But even in the same or generally similar geographic areas, the concept of "race" still breaks down and fails. The Ainu population, for example, is more phenotypically similar to Europeans than Asians. So does that mean that the Ainu are "white"? There are Austrialian Aborigines that have populations with 100% tawny-haired individuals. Europeans are the only other population with a significant amount of tawny-haired people. So does this again mean that these Australians are "white"? Tracing the origin of First Nation people in the Americas, whether one believes in the pre-Clovis or the Clovis-first theory of the peoples coming to the Americas, has shown that they came from Asia. Do you classify them as "asian" or as their own "race"?

[Micamo]

Of course, the genetic difference between humans is only 1% of the total DNA. If I recall correctly, that's less than the average genetic difference between members of the same band of chimpanzees. Still, 1% is 1%. You don't get to round it down to 0.

[Thakowsaizmu]

No one said that it was rounded down to zero. But that 1% doesn't create different "races".

[MrKrov]

And what percentage of that is between populations and what percentage of that is within populations?

[eldin raigmore]

Also, race is a myth, so there is that.

Not all scientists agree.

I always felt that the study referred to by the New York Times supported the "race is a myth" (in humans) idea. It seems that most characteristics thought of as "racial" in humans, vary along a cline; there seem to be very few, or even no, sharp boundaries. And IIRC that's what that study said.

Am I wrong?

Many scientists have been wrong.

True, but it doesn't prove:

Those scientists are wrong.

If two groups of scientists disagree, then likely at least one of them is wrong. But who can say which?

Genetically, if we can procreate with each other (without technology to help, just before someone tries to use that one), we are the same race.

You're confusing "species" with "race".
The usual definition of "species" has it that two conspecific individuals of appropriate age and sex can, and in the wild would be likely to, mate with one another and produce fertile offspring. There are problems with that definition, but those are exceptions; that's the usual definition.

The definition of "race" is different. I don't know a good technical definition. I do know that Gibbons, in "The Decline and Fall ...", used "race" to mean what we'd mean by "extended family" or "dynasty". So I think the word "race" means different things in different times and places. For instance "La Raza Unida" thinks Spanish-speakers are a "race"; to me that's a linguistic group, not a race. Nazis thought Jews were a "race"; to me they're a religion.

All Humans are Human. Humans and Neanderthals were two different races. Black people and white people are not.

But "humans" (whatever that means) and Neandertals could and did interbreed.

What the difference is between a "subspecies" and a "race" I can't say; I've never seen a good technical definition. I always thought it meant "Neandertals were still 'human', but they differed more from any modern race than any two modern races differ from each other".

I don't think you can deny that there are geographic clusters of genetic differences.

That's what I now think "race" mostly is.
The longer a group has been in a region, the more of their adjustments to it tend to be genetic instead of technological.

As I understand it:
7% of human genetic variability is between one "race" and another;
8% of human genetic variability is between one "ethnic group" and another within the same race;
85% of human genetic variability is between one individual and another within the same ethnic group.

It just so happens that "race" characteristics are mostly adaptations to the climate; and that what meets the climate tends to be also what meets the eye.

So the variations that are visible tend to be the ones that vary by climate; skin color, epicanthic folds or the lack of them, hooked noses or not, long thin cylindrical bodies or short thick spheroidal ones, oily or dry skin, etc.

Since humans who wish to discriminate -- and many often have so wished -- will seize on any visible difference, and the non-racial differences were mostly the non-visible ones and vice-versa, discrimination by race has been common wherever there were two different races.

But at times what we now call "nationality" was regarded as "race". Certain South American countries, when hostile to each other, have in the past thought of it as racial hostility. In the 19th century French vs German hostility was thought by some of them to be racial as much as or more than national. Etc.