Let me introduce you to MENASA and the 'Flavos' Race

[OrthodoxHipster]

I thought we were talking about race. While South Asians and MENA can look superficially alike in some instances, the formers are quite different racially speaking. More Eastern Eurasians and more Oceanians, so that's 2 completely different groups than the baseline makeup of say North Africans.

These "superficial", phenotypic, physical, and morphological similarities are the basis for any race, imo. I'm less concerned with genotypic comparisons and more so with observable, yet subjective racial groupings that give us a better understanding of different peoples.

I believe the Flavo race is pragmatic because it unites a large group of peoples with geographically similar affinities stretching beyond the Mediterranean / Orient. Likewise, these people all generally possess dark hair with light to medium brown skin and long-heads, high foreheads, almond-shaped eyes, and fuller lips.

Currently in the U.S., Indians / South Asians are lumped in with the "Asian" race (i.e. Mongoloids), despite having more physical characteristics in common with their neighbors to the West.

[Aldaris]

Look at this map:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...tances_map.jpg

Still think it's a coherent concept?

I guess when speaking about "race" we have to take into account also culture, religion etc. Some people may identify rather as "muslim" then as any racial group. Even White Nationalists acknowledge culture and behaviour as part of race, that is why they do typically consider muslims not to be compatible with being white like some albanians for example.

No, that would be ethnicity, not race. The latter is completely determined by your genetics.

Also skin complexion is much more varied in these regions, not only in darkness but in tone(though olive or yellowish skin tones does dominate, like you mention).

I agree, but it doesn't even matter. I can hardly tell Anadamanese and central Africans apart by looks alone, though their last common ancestor lived tens of thousands years ago.

[Mortimer]

Look at this map:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...tances_map.jpg

Still think it's a coherent concept?




No, that would be ethnicity, not race. The latter is completely determined by your genetics.



I agree, but it doesn't even matter. I can hardly tell Anadamanese and central Africans apart by looks alone, though their last common ancestor lived tens of thousands years ago.

Some races are metaethnicities some ethnicities function as races like when you call jews neither white nor black but a seperate race the line is not clear also there are many mixtures seen as one or the other race when in fact they are more then one race but people have a tendency to group themselfes some even say the biologically distinct category race does not exist in humans

I found this on Wikipedia

While the concepts of race and ethnicity are considered to be separate in contemporary social science, the two terms have a long history of equivalence in popular usage and older social science literature. "Ethnicity" is often used in a sense close to one traditionally attributed to "race", the division of human groups based on qualities assumed to be essential or innate to the group (e.g. shared ancestry or shared behavior). Racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial.

[Aldaris]

Some races are metaethnicities some ethnicities function as races

Just to be clear, I am using the definition used in biological taxonomy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)

like when you call jews neither white nor black but a seperate race the line is not clear

Oh yeah, sorites paradox again. How many more times I will have to talk about it.. Indeed the lines between the biological races aren't clear, it's impossible to draw them. That doesn't mean the races don't exist or anything like that. Many of our classifications of whatever are fuzzy, but we still use them. I can tell a Nigerian from a Swede when I see their DNA results and they are clearly different. The same way I can tell a stream from a river or a hill from a mountain. Does that mean that those terms are meaningless too, even though there is not really a clear line? The best you can do is 'you know when you see it approach'. I know it's not completely satisfactory to our brains (that's why it's called a paradox), but it's the best we can do. Try to google something like 'fuzzy classifications' or 'fuzzy logic'.

also there are many mixtures seen as one or the other race when in fact they are more then one race but people have a tendency to group themselfes some even say the biologically distinct category race does not exist in humans

How they are seen is irrelevant when you go by the actual definition I've posted above. Singling out humans from the other animals is not scientific, though even that one is unclear. Pal, TA must be a sociologists' dream. But jokes aside, the term 'race' in the context of how most biological taxonomists' use it, in form or the other most certainly applies to humans aswell. And yeah, mixtures exist. That doesn't defy the concept of race either though.

[Abdelnour]

I believe the Flavo race is pragmatic because it unites a large group of peoples with geographically similar affinities stretching beyond the Mediterranean / Orient. Likewise, these people all generally possess dark hair with light to medium brown skin and long-heads, high foreheads, almond-shaped eyes, and fuller lips.

Except these features are not even the majority of which countries you listed. Someone from Palestine may have almond-shaped eyes, but many way east of that has larger round eyes from my observations. Also, full lips are more common in North Africa than anywhere else in region.

[Mortimer]

Just to be clear, I am using the definition used in biological taxonomy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)



Oh yeah, sorites paradox again. How many more times I will have to talk about it.. Indeed the lines between the biological races aren't clear, it's impossible to draw them. That doesn't mean the races don't exist or anything like that. Many of our classifications of whatever are fuzzy, but we still use them. I can tell a Nigerian from a Swede when I see their DNA results and they are clearly different. The same way I can tell a stream from a river or a hill from a mountain. Does that mean that those terms are meaningless too, even though there is not really a clear line? The best you can do is 'you know when you see it approach'. I know it's not completely satisfactory to our brains (that's why it's called a paradox), but it's the best we can do. Try to google something like 'fuzzy classifications' or 'fuzzy logic'.



How they are seen is irrelevant when you go by the actual definition I've posted above. Singling out humans from the other animals is not scientific, though even that one is unclear. Pal, TA must be a sociologists' dream. But jokes aside, the term 'race' in the context of how most biological taxonomists' use it, in form or the other most certainly applies to humans aswell. And yeah, mixtures exist. That doesn't defy the concept of race either though.

Singling out humans might be scientific because humans are the only ones who write books about such things its humans who do the categorisation depending on their viewpoint and context. Humans give that a meaning in the first place and you are shooting at a strawman because i never said there are no taxonomical differences between humans but your own article says there are various ways to define it like genetically physiologically or geographically reminds of the asian racial category which is defined loosely geographically or caucasoid which is defined physiologically by skull measurement and sometimes someone can be both like pakistani are typically caucasoid or nordindid by old taxonomical classification but asian like han chinese on most western countries censuses and i said the line between ethnicity and race are not clear because you said societal factors apply only to ethnicities not races but white and black american function also as ethnicities and remind me of such and have lots of cultural context like acting white or acting black

[OrthodoxHipster]

Except these features are not even the majority of which countries you listed. Someone from Palestine may have almond-shaped eyes, but many way east of that has larger round eyes from my observations. Also, full lips are more common in North Africa than anywhere else in region.

I think these features are the majority. The characteristics of brown skin, dark hair, etcetera are surely rife throughout MENASA. Why wouldn't they be?

[Abdelnour]

I think these features are the majority. The characteristics of brown skin, dark hair, etcetera are surely rife throughout MENASA. Why wouldn't they be?

Do you honestly believe that all these countries you have grouped together have the same skin color?

[OrthodoxHipster]

Do you honestly believe that all these countries you have grouped together have the same skin color?

Skin color isn't the only factor, but generally speaking, yes; not every country, but I brown continuum appears to exist.CRGgD7s-2.jpg

[Abdelnour]

Skin color isn't the only factor, but generally speaking, yes; not every country, but I brown continuum appears to exist.CRGgD7s-2.jpg

Both maps show India skin color being closer to SSA than to most MENA groups in terms of skin color.

Anyways, his group doesn't seem scientific to me.

The merit I see in this grouping that it is convenient, which is led by "well they are all brown and look like" when most likely the point of reference is western TV shows and movies. I can assure you that everyone in this forum can pick out a North African from a Pakistani, so being hard to differentiate isn't a valid argument.

At the end of the day, if this works for you, by all means. It just doesn't work for me and I am sure a few others here.