Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Physiology & Medicine => Topic started by: Titanscape on 05/06/2006 04:44:39
-
How well can you tell a persons race by their appearance?
Titanscape
-
you can't always tell...some people know I am of Scandinavian decent by my features..but my sons due to pigamentation people are always fooled and guess wrong.
"Lo" Loretta
-
Few people are thoroughbreds. We all, to some extent or another, exist in a continuum within the racial spectrum. Beyond that, there is anyway a natural variation and drift within any race.
I am generally fairly good at determining people of Jewish extraction, but that still probably means I can recognise about 50% of them, the other 50% being sufficiently far from the archetypal (either through genetic mixing, or genetic drift) that they are not recognisably Jewish (and conversely, those who may be genetically Jewish will not always exactly match those who are culturally Jewish – although this should lead to more people who are genetically Jewish having moved out of the Jewish cultural community than it would lead to the opposite).
Finns are another ethnic European group that have a very distinctive skeletal structure. The same structure has some evidence in some Hungarian groups (due to the common Finno-Ugric history), but the Hungarian population has far higher intermixing than the Finnish population – nonetheless, there does remain substantial intermixing between the Finns and their neighbours, particularly the Swedes, although to some extent also the Balts and Slavs.
George
-
I think you have a valid point. There are no thoroughbreds...too many people with different backgrounds have made us all an interesting breed. Of course, maybe that is what keeps us from being so boring too, I don't mean by our looks but our personalities, cultures, and etc..
"Lo" Loretta
-
you will be amazed to know that one can identify the race of a person upto 99.99% just by their external appearance.
-
quote:
Originally posted by qazibasit
you will be amazed to know that one can identify the race of a person upto 99.99% just by their external appearance.
This might be true where there is a clear delineation between races, and it becomes easy to pigeon hole a person as one race or another; but this can only be true for relatively inbred populations (e.g. those who are geographically or religiously isolated from their nearest neighbours, and who do not marry out of their own group).
In the European/American context, there is a wide range of races that freely intermarry (it does does not mean that intramarriage is not still far more common than intermarriage, but there is sufficient intermarriage that the racial boundaries are quickly blurred). It may well be that in some parts of the world there is greater resistance to intermarriage, and greater isolation of racial groups.
Ofcourse, it also depends upon how you define your racial group. Clearly, while there are Chinese communities in Europe and America, and there is intermarriage between this group and the wider community; most Chinese live in China, and have very little contact with Europeans or Americans, either within their own country or outside of it. Clearly, there is some shared blood between Chinese and Europeans (particularly as a consequence of the Mongol invasions of the 13 century that would have effected both communities, as well as Turkish groups that have influenced both groups), but the amount of contemporary interbreeding on a global scale between Chinese and Europeans is still very slight.
But, the discussion we were having earlier about early European races, such as the Finns or European Jews, have a long and thoroughly integrated history within Europe, and their racial boundaries have become extensively blurred.
George
-
quote:
Originally posted by qazibasit
you will be amazed to know that one can identify the race of a person upto 99.99% just by their external appearance.
On what facts do you base your findings? Personal experience or research from someone...I have to disagree with you unless you know every race there is besides the general ones on applications or whatever? I myself, can base this on experience with my own sons as the majority have no clue what they are and generally take a guess and miss it by 99.9% wrong..in fact, I don't recall even a .1%...if you are that good, I challenge you to guess what their race is as you would definitely be the .1% in their entire lifetime to guess and you would only guess half correctly with looking up my information in the above thread. [:)]
"Lo" Loretta
-
quote:
Originally posted by another_someone
quote:
Originally posted by qazibasit
you will be amazed to know that one can identify the race of a person upto 99.99% just by their external appearance.
This might be true where there is a clear delineation between races, and it becomes easy to pigeon hole a person as one race or another; but this can only be true for relatively inbred populations (e.g. those who are geographically or religiously isolated from their nearest neighbours, and who do not marry out of their own group).
In the European/American context, there is a wide range of races that freely intermarry (it does does not mean that intramarriage is not still far more common than intermarriage, but there is sufficient intermarriage that the racial boundaries are quickly blurred). It may well be that in some parts of the world there is greater resistance to intermarriage, and greater isolation of racial groups.
Ofcourse, it also depends upon how you define your racial group. Clearly, while there are Chinese communities in Europe and America, and there is intermarriage between this group and the wider community; most Chinese live in China, and have very little contact with Europeans or Americans, either within their own country or outside of it. Clearly, there is some shared blood between Chinese and Europeans (particularly as a consequence of the Mongol invasions of the 13 century that would have effected both communities, as well as Turkish groups that have influenced both groups), but the amount of contemporary interbreeding on a global scale between Chinese and Europeans is still very slight.
But, the discussion we were having earlier about early European races, such as the Finns or European Jews, have a long and thoroughly integrated history within Europe, and their racial boundaries have become extensively blurred.
George
I totally agree with you there...as I even have a friend who is always mistakenly thought of as Chinese, but she is of Japanese decent...Excellent point![;)]
"Lo" Loretta
-
race is really barely defined.
in america and europe most people of african or carribean decent are called black. black in south africa is clearly defined from "colored", even though in america or europe they would both be black. most black people in america, decended from slaves, are 20-40% european. some pacific islanders consider themselves black even though theyre not from africa. its the same with any other "race", each culture has its own definitions.
its also true what you are saying about geographic location being misleading. if i said some one was "african" you might imagine they were black, but there is a large white population in south africa. if i say "canadian" you might imagine french-caucasions, but it could be the aleutians. almost no continent is all one "race".
on a side note, does hybrid vigor exist in humans? i was wondering if offspring from practically cross-continental marriages have increased abilities, physical or mental; or lifespans, or whatever. i would guess it would strengthen all bloodlines.
-
How about me, take a look at my profile picture, my dad is black jamaican my mother is white english but looking at my profile pick you would never guess that.
Michael
-
To look at Szecklers, ie, Hungarian Transylvanians, they look European, but are said to be descended from the mixing of Huns with Ugrians.
Titanscape
-
It easy to spot a persons race from even a distance……. We are all humans with the same common ancestors. The rest is all C**P…..
What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Titanscape
To look at Szecklers, ie, Hungarian Transylvanians, they look European, but are said to be descended from the mixing of Huns with Ugrians.
Can't say I have had much cause to look at Transylvania, since I have never actually visited Romania (and Transylvania, since 1918, is a part of Romania).
Nonetheless, I would be very surprised if anyone can clearly trace racial origins back to Huns. Very little is known about the Huns, except that they were probably a Turkic speaking tribe that originated (as did much of the Turkish groups) probably in Mongolia (although it is not even certain if the Huns were a unified people or a confederation of desperate tribes).
It is possible that the Proto-Bulgars were related to the Huns, since they too were a Turkic speaking group.
It is even possible, if the Huns were a confederation, rather than a single people, that they may have had ugric derived people's amongst their number.
Nonetheless, I would very much doubt that any modern European people's could trace a singular history back to both the Huns, and the Ugric/Magyar people's, and no-one else. Clearly, there is a Magyar phenotype, which as I said before, is not unlike their cousins, the Finns. The Magyar people's themselves have intermixed with many groups, particularly the Slavs, various German groups (Germans and Slavs anyway being closely related, and thoroughly intermixed), and more modern (i.e. 15th to 18th century) Turkish groups. Any well defined genetic lineage specifically back to the Huns (who are very ill defined as a group) seems unlikely for any modern European group.
George
-
I thought the Turks were a tribe of Celts that went east. Huns were observed by the Romans and had Mongol eyes.
Turks are European looking, there a a fair few here in Australia.
Although in the east there are Tartars, who look Chinese.
Titanscape
-
quote:
Originally posted by Titanscape
I thought the Turks were a tribe of Celts that went east. Huns were observed by the Romans and had Mongol eyes.
Turks are European looking, there a a fair few here in Australia.
Although in the east there are Tartars, who look Chinese.
I believe that Tartars is a word the Russians used for the remnants of the Mongol peoples who invaded much or Eurasia in the 13th century.
The Turks, as a people, probably originated in the area of Mongolia, and drifted westward.
The problem is, as indicated above, separating what might be regarded as an original race, and the modern nation.
The Turks at various times in history had an empire that stretched from the Atlantic and the Pyrenees, to the Balkans, to the Persian gulf, and took wives and slaves (with whom the bore children) from all of their territories, so the modern Turkish nation is every bit as mongrel as any European nation.
Many of the people we see as Turks are from Istanbul, the old Byzantium, and so are predominantly European in origin. Turks in Anatolia are quite a mix of various Mediterranean races. The Turks in Thrace are largely indistinguishable from their Greek neighbours (unsurprisingly, since both Thrace and Greece were part of the Byzantine empire, and then the Ottoman empire, and only in 19th century were they divided along the border they hold today).
The Celts you talk of are the inhabitants of Galatia (note the similarity between the names Galatia and Gaul) who were an small incursion of Celtic peoples into Anatolia long before the arrival of the first Turks.
That the Huns has Chinese eyes would not be surprising since, as I said, the early Turks originated in Mongolia, and had much interaction with the Chinese.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiongnu
quote:
The Xiongnu (Chinese: #21256;#22900;; Pinyin: Xi#333;ngnú; Wade-Giles: Hsiung-nu); were a nomadic (and probably Hunnic/proto-Turkic) people of Central Asia, generally based in present day Mongolia. From the 3rd century BC they controlled a vast steppe empire extending west as far as the Caucasus. They were active in the areas of southern Siberia, western Manchuria and the modern Chinese provinces of Inner Mongolia, Gansu and Xinjiang. Very ancient (perhaps legendary) historic records say that the Xiongnu descended from a son of the final ruler of China's first dynasty (Xia Dynasty), the remnants of which were believed by the Chinese of the Spring and Autumn Period to be the people of the state of Q#464; (#26462;). However, due to internal differences and strife, the Xiongnu fled north and north-west.
Relations between the Chinese and the Xiongnu were complicated and included military conflict, exchanges in tribute and trade, as well as marriage treaties.
The overwhelming amount of information on the Xiongnu comes from Chinese sources. There is no way of reconstructing any substantial part of the Xiongnu language. What little we know of their titles and names come from Chinese transliterations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiongnu#Did_the_Xiongnu_become_the_Huns.3F
quote:
The Xiongnu have often been identified with the Huns, who populated the frontiers of Europe, starting with the writings of the French historian de Guignes in the eighteenth century. This theory remains at the level of speculation, although it is accepted by a large number of scholars including Chinese ones. DNA testing of Hun remains has not proven conclusive in determining the origin of the Huns.
Linguistically, it is important to understand that "xi#333;ngnú" is only the modern standard Mandarin pronunciation (based on the Beijing dialect) of "#21256;#22900;". At the time of Hunnish contact with the world (the 4th–6th centuries AD), the character "#21256;" was pronounced /ho#331;/.
The first character therefore has a clear similarity with the name "Hun" in European languages. Whether this is evidence of kinship or mere coincidence is hard to tell. It could lend credence to the theory that the Huns were in fact descendants of the Western Xiongnu who migrated westward, or that the Huns were using a name borrowed from the Western Xiongnu, or that these Xiongnu made up part of the Hun confederation.
In modern Chinese, the character "#21256;" is used in four ways: 1) to mean "chest" (also written #33016; in this sense); 2) in the name #21256;#29273;#21033; Xi#333;ngyálì "Hungary"; 3) in the name #21256;#20154; Xi#333;ngrén "Hun [person]"; 4) in the name #21256;#22900; Xi#333;ngnú "Xiongnu".
The second character, "#22900;", appears to have no parallel in Western terminology. Its contemporary pronunciation was /nh#333;/, and its means "slave", although it is possible that it has only a phonetic role in the name #21256;#22900;. There is almost certainly no connection between the "chest" meaning of #21256; and its ethnic meaning. There might conceivably be some sort of connection with the identically pronounced word "#20982;", which means "fierce", "ferocious", "inauspicious", "bad", or "violent act". Most probably, the word derives from the tribe's own name for itself, and the character was chosen somewhat arbitrarily — a practice that continues today in Chinese renderings of foreign names.
George