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

[Petalpusher]

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

As a simple 50 shades of brown grouping, then OK.

Doesn't go much beyond that though, we know ethnicty goes beyond skin tone (ie Oceanians vs SSA)

[Petalpusher]

DP all day and nights

[OrthodoxHipster]

As a simple 50 shades of brown grouping, then OK.

Doesn't go much beyond that though, we know ethnicty goes beyond skin tone (ie Oceanians vs SSA)

Yes, but if race has to do with physical appearance and not genotype, then both Oceanic Negroids and SSA are Black.

[Aldaris]

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

No, that's not how scientific taxonomy works. We are still great apes, we are still animals, we are still eukaryotes and so on. Biology doesn't care about human viewpoint. Humans didn't give it a meaning, humans merely gave it a label.

and you are shooting at a strawman because i never said there are no taxonomical differences between humans

Yes, and I didn't say you did. No who is strawmaning who?

but your own article says there are various ways to define it like genetically physiologically or geographically

I thought it was obvious from the context that I've meant this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomic_rank

But I will be generous. Read through those definitions correctly, Mort.

Geographical race
A distinct population that is isolated in a particular area from other populations of a species,[13] and consistently distinguishable from the others,[13] e.g. morphology (or even only genetically[4]).

Don't you see that it implicitly assumes biological differences?

As for the 'physiological race',

I assume you think that the physiological race means only the similarity morphology or maybe you don't, I don't know. But if you do, I will give you a one million dollars if you could find a serious taxonomist who would tell you that a marsupial mouse belongs to the same race as the placental one. Neither you nor me could tell a difference only by morphology, by the way.

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 there we go. Those definitions are proven to be correct to a degree, but we don't use them anymore. We have genetics for that. Check the map I've posted in my original post, all the information you need is there.

because you said societal factors apply only to ethnicities not races

Yes, and I'm correct at that point.

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

White and black Americans are different ethnicities, yes. If a black acts white, that doesn't make him racially nor ethnically white, it makes him culturally white, so to speak. And vice-versa.

[Mortimer]

No, that's not how scientific taxonomy works. We are still great apes, we are still animals, we are still eukaryotes and so on. Biology doesn't care about human viewpoint. Humans didn't give it a meaning, humans merely gave it a label.

Lable, meaning is the same in this context, humans lable barack obama as black, or this or that person as this or that race, according to their viewpoint, and cultural context, when someone might be more then one race, technically someone with 1% east asian and 99% white is also two races, only someone who is 100% white is not two races, but even modern races are mixtures of preshistoric distinct populations who had maybe a overlap like ANE is also found in amerindians and europeans etc. Because humans live in organised communities and they are beings with a high conscious, so they form groups, and sometimes other factors then "biology" are important why someone is part of the group or like a armenian is rather accepted by europeans as white but a turk not, because of culture, history etc. so humans evolved socially not only biologically, thats why the social aspect is important too... i guess that is what we discuss, and white is actually also a ethnicity how white nationalists define it... how they act etc. when they see a muslim or jew... read Stormfront and their definitions and opinions of white....

Yes, and I didn't say you did. No who is strawmaning who?

Then what is your point?

White and black Americans are different ethnicities, yes. If a black acts white, that doesn't make him racially nor ethnically white, it makes him culturally white, so to speak. And vice-versa.

That you can be "culturally white" proves that there is a societal factor to it.. and a full black wouldnt be white, but if it is a quadroon or octroon it would depend on how he acts and how he is viewed by the community, how he is known by the community, there is even a article about that on white passing people with black ancestry, i think i read that when i read about melungeons (triracials, black white amerindian) that they were sometimes seen as white

[kingmob]

Ask me how I knew the OP would be LatAm before entering the thread.

[Mingle]

Both South Asians and MENAs would be strongly opposed to such a grouping, so it basically loses its merit from that alone. And it doesn't make more sense than grouping MENAs with Europeans. Even the MENA grouping itself is contentious, it's basically a pan-Arab grouping that drags Iranians, Anatolians, and sometimes Caucasians into it.

[kingmob]

Also,

the descendants of Japheth are centered around SE Europe and Anatolia, they are not isolated as "Scythians", those are the descendants of Magog.

Stop misquoting the Scriptures as fuel for your OWD angst.

[mashail]

only north indians can overlap with MENA but their features is different from MENA actually MENA themselves they dont look alike for example NAs look nothing like MEs only similar skin tones that's it. levantines and Iraqis are the lightest their skin range from pale to medium olive skin with colored hair and eyes too.
while Arabians are very unique they have their own features their skin is mostly olive to light brown skin with dark hair and eyes. Yemeni are the darkest and look more similar to Indians.
genetically Indians r not related to semitic ppl.

[OrthodoxHipster]

Also,

the descendants of Japheth are centered around SE Europe and Anatolia, they are not isolated as "Scythians", those are the descendants of Magog.

Stop misquoting the Scriptures as fuel for your OWD angst.

My brother in Christ, you are getting it twisted. The racial concepts of the Japhethic, Semitic, and Hamitic races were appropriated from the Table of Nations. In other words, these classifications are distinct from Biblical history / scripture:

"European medieval models of race generally mixed Classical ideas with the notion that humanity as a whole was descended from Shem, Ham and Japheth, the three sons of Noah, producing distinct Semitic (Asiatic), Hamitic (African), and Japhetic (Indo-European) peoples. Some critics have alleged that the association between the sons of Noah and skin color dates back at least to the Babylonian Talmud, which some have argued states that the descendants of Ham were cursed with black skin. In the seventh century, the idea that black Africans were cursed with both dark skin and slavery began to gain strength with some Islamic writers, as black Africans became a slave class in the Islamic world."

In contrast, the Meyers Konversations-Lexikon (1885–1890) ethnographic map appears to attribute the Semitic race to the Greater Middle East, the Hamitic race (to the south Sahara / Savannah), and the Japhetic race to Greater Europe.

Stop assuming my intentions. It makes an ass of u and me.