Caucazoids and Negroids and Mongoloids, oh my!

OnTheBounce · Post by **OnTheBounce** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 3:25 pm

People have been categorizing organisms into taxonomic systems for quite a while, going back at least to Aristotle. In the 18th Century the foundations were laid for the modern taxonomic system used today.

There were several systems that were proposed during that time, but Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778), a Swedish botanist and physician, published Systema Naturae (1735) which, along with a couple of later works, laid out the basic structure of modern taxonomy (kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species), beginning with plants. In the tenth, revised edition of Systema Naturae (1758), Linnaeus expanded his system into the Animal kingdom, to include Humans. In this work they were divided into the following groups:

Europaeus: "sanguine" and "muscular" (whites)
Asiaticus: "melancholy" and "stiff" (sallow/yellow)
Americanus: "choleric" and "upright" (red)
Afer: "phlegmatic" and "relaxed" (black)
Ferus: "wild" and "hirsute"; ran about on all fours
Troglodyte (classical name for cavemen)
Monstrous: anything not fitting into the above categories, includes mutations, giants, etc.

Note that the order is not arbitrary, but was an explicit qualitative ranking. The further down the list a race was, the further they were removed from excellence, which found its highest expression in Europe. Note also that the adjectives such as "phlegmatic" are moods that were associated w/various bodily fluids, and in this case were used to describe the cultures of these races. This system actually used culture and physiology moreso than any anatomic characteristic as its gauge, which is the most important difference between Linnaeus' work and the later Blumenbach.

Enter Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840), who took issue w/Linnaeus' work and set about to revise it, rejecting portions of Linnaeus' system, and expounding on other portions of it. His revised racial system looked like this:

Caucasoid (white)
Mongoloid (yellow)
American (red)
Ethiopian (black)
Malayan (brown)

Note Blumenbach's rejection of the Ferus, Troglodyte (since cave dwellings were a state of cultural advancement, and not a racial characteristic) and Monstrous categories. He has also added the "Malayan" type, which is basically the peoples of southern Asia, e.g. Indians.

Note also that the ranking is still not arbitrary. A race's position in the list is from highest to lowest level of quality.

The region which a race was identified with was thought to be that area in which the race originated, and also (very importantly) that area in which it was to be found in its most perfect form. Blumenbach associated the white race w/the Caucasus due largely to an account of a French traveller from nearly a century before by the name of Jean Chardin (1643-1713). In his accounts Blumenbach read of the perfection of the inhabitants of the region, and chose to associate the race w/that region.

One of the most important changes that Blumenbach's system made to Linnaeus' earlier one is that rather than identifying race largely w/culture, it identified it wholly w/anatomy. It relied largely on the pseudo-science of craniometry, also known as cephalometry, which involved cataloging skull measurements. This was to be something that was not wholly rejected by the scientific community until at least the 1940s, and indeed was a cornerstone of Nazi racial theories among many others.

So, there you have it.

Sorry this took a bit, but I got a bit sidetracked w/a discussion regarding Japan and the impact of Commodore Perry. :oops:

OTB

Lynxer · Post by **Lynxer** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 3:34 pm

Very interesting material.

Nicolai · Post by **Nicolai** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 3:45 pm

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 3:57 pm

...

But does it really matter?

I mean, human beings have been so much mix-breaded, that I doubt you could find only certain characteristics from exactly these and these races. And the border between this racial categorizing and racism is quite thin actually... The next step would be, that a son of a black man and a white woman would be rich son of a bitch who likes chicken and watermelon, because sc1enc3 says so.

Eh, got a bit carried away... But the point is, that ARE there any real (ie. firm) differences between the races besides the looks? Do some have bigger brains, bigger muscles etc. As far as I know, you can find any type of people from every race, it's more of a cultural heritage than biological heritage as well.

I'm not sure of what "Japan-thread" you're talking about, been away for some time now, but if I'm bullshitting again, just ignore me.

OnTheBounce · Post by **OnTheBounce** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 4:12 pm

Kashluk wrote:But does it really matter?

That's not the point. I wasn't posting this to shore up anyone's stance on racial theories, but rather because Slave_Master was wondering about where the term "Caucasian" came from.

Kashluk wrote:And the border between this racial categorizing and racism is quite thin actually...

There was no border between the two in the 18th Century. Essentially, Europeans took it for granted that they were superior, and these "theories" (I enclose the word in quotes to denote that its use is suspicious) were used as ways to both support an assumption on their part, as well to explain why they were superior. In the late 19th Century this sort of thinking was evident in such thinking as Social Darwinism, which essentially argued that ruling classes were adapted to their positions by biology. When you look at it, it's really not that different from medieval European thinking that the nobility was put in their position by God Almighty, and hence had a right to rule. (See the Divine Right of Kings.)

Kashluk wrote:...But the point is, that ARE there any real (ie. firm) differences between the races besides the looks?

Most differences are cultural. However, there are some physiological differences between races, such as say Sickle Cell Anemia being found only in Blacks, which they are genetically predisposed toward. The differences are, quite frankly, minimal.

Kashluk wrote:I'm not sure of what "Japan-thread" you're talking about, been away for some time now, but if I'm bullshitting again, just ignore me.

It wasn't here on DaC, but rather NMA. I was going to finish looking into the question of Caucasians on Sunday, but Welsh posted something and I spent all day slogging through notes and books. I'm sure Slave_Master was beginning to think that I'd forgotten him.

OTB

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 4:43 pm

Oh, ok. Sorry for intruding, then.

But one thing is still unclear to me: if a man is black, but comes from Caucasia, is he caucasian?

Nicolai · Post by **Nicolai** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:29 pm

Hm, perhaps you could call him a semi-caucasian?
I mean, if you come from Caucasia, you're a Caucasian, but not a caucasian. And caucasians arent black, so that would make him something like a Caucasian caucasian. Or something like that.

er.. I dunno

Slave_Master · Post by **Slave_Master** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 6:42 pm

Thanks, OTB. Now I can confidently say I'm a little bit less clueless.

OnTheBounce · Post by **OnTheBounce** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 6:49 pm

Slave_Master wrote:Thanks, OTB. Now I can confidently say I'm a little bit less clueless.

Cheers! Maybe you can use it at the next party you go to and impress some girl. (Better hope Will Hunting isn't within earshot, though...)

BTW, thank you for giving me the impetus to look into it. It's been one of those things I've wondered about off-and-on for years, but never looked into.

OTB

Slave_Master · Post by **Slave_Master** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 10:05 pm

OnTheBounce wrote:Cheers! Maybe you can use it at the next party you go to and impress some girl. (Better hope Will Hunting isn't within earshot, though...)

Doubtful. The only folks who throw parties around where I live are negroids, and negroids who aren't keen on inviting suspicious looking aryan fellows at that.

BTW, thank you for giving me the impetus to look into it. It's been one of those things I've wondered about off-and-on for years, but never looked into.

I suppose now you're off to write a book entitled "Everything You Wanted to Know About Seventeenth Century Racism but Were too Afraid to Ask"?

Grey Fil · Post by **Grey Fil** » Wed Dec 31, 2003 9:32 am

About the phisical and mental diferences between races the modern scientific thinking goes more or less along these lines:

There are some very small mental and phisiological diferences between average representatives of the various modern races. Asian children for example are a tiny little bit quietter at birth then children of other races. The variation inside the races is huge wich turns the interracial diference insignificant. This applies only to some characteristics. Curiously inteligence the most used characteristic in all racist supremacy theories of all kinds of racist groups is one of the most dificult to mesure and the one who gives the least reliable results.

Resuming: White men can jump better then black men (ocasionally).

Another thing that I find kind of funny is the racial classification that was official in the USA until recently and maybe still is. Now I finally know why people who look white to me are classified as black and why hispanics are very different from what I call hispanic.

Stainless · Post by **Stainless** » Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:24 pm

I recall along long long time ago (we're talking about 5 or so years here), how I had a teacher informing us that the asian race was more physilogically advanced then the rest of us. Tending to have a larger cranium, etc, etc. Something about the eyes and computers. I personally don't believe anything along that.

Most physilogical differences you see today are pretty much natural selection at work. Darker skin of negros, etc would probibly of came about due to heavy sun exposure. Similar changes would of affected the different races around the world to give them an edge in their environment.

Grey Fil · Post by **Grey Fil** » Thu Jan 01, 2004 5:53 am

The asians more evolved theory comes from the fact that the human evolutionary path is in part due to a phenomenon that consists in the preservation until later in life of childish characteristics. Humans take much longer to mature then any other animal of comparable size, humans also come much more "unfinished" into the world then other animals of similar size and whe never develop some "mature" characteristics of our primate cousins. Our canine teeth for example are very child-like. Based on this people extrapolated that since asians keep a few more of those types of characteristics then they are more evolved. Most of those are cosmetic only. Asians develop less body hair and later in life for example. On the other hand asians mature much faster then other races in one physiological characteristic. Cildren have the capacity to metabolise lactose (the sugar of milk), while most people of other races keep that capacity all their life asians like most mammals quickly loose that capacity in the middle of the childhood.
Anyway it doesnt really matter for there are no "more evolved" beings only better or worst adaptations to certain conditions.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Thu Jan 01, 2004 9:01 am

And today, when globalization has taken over, it doesn't really matter. There's no time or room for evolution anymore, because everyone's been treated and no one's family stays put at a certain location for centuries under the same enviroment.

I think all the people in the world will be mildly dark in the end. Mixing the races happens so fast, that I doubt there'll be any "pure bred" member of any race in the near future.

Grey Fil · Post by **Grey Fil** » Thu Jan 01, 2004 11:35 am

Kashy you are making 2 big mistakes.

1- Evolution works during really long periods of time, generally millions of years. Human societies complex enough to reduce the effect of conventional evolutionary mecanisms exist for a few thousand years. Who knows how long and in wich direction will human societies evolve. And evolution has not stopped, whe are still being selected, only in a slightly different way.

2-There are no "pure bred" humans. They never existed. The modern races are the result of previous races mixing and separating and being selected in different ways. Also the mixing of races does not give an homogeneous group of people with intermediate characteristics. It gives greater variety.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Thu Jan 01, 2004 8:05 pm

Hehe, two points, two mistakes

Got to agree, that your post makes a lot more sense. I dunno what got into me, maybe I'm back to normal?