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

[OrthodoxHipster]

119238

According to the racial scheme of 17th century German historian and geographer, Georgius Hornius, the Japhetites (identified as Scythians, an Iranic ethnic group and Celts) are "white" (albos), the Aethiopians and Chamae are "black" (nigros), and the Indians and Semites are "brownish-yellow" (flavos), while the Jews, following Mishnah Sanhedrin, are exempt from the classification being neither black nor white but "light brown" (buxus, the color of boxwood).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_terminology_for_race#cite_note-8)

MENASA, is short for the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MENA#cite_note-50) Its usage consists of the region of MENA together with South Asia, with Dubai chosen by the United Nations as the data hub for the region.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MENA#cite_note-TA-6) In some contexts, specifically the Lauder Institute at the University of Pennsylvania, the region is abbreviated as SAMENA instead of the more common MENASA.

[Mortimer]

People have different ideas of "race" so it is indeed true that "race is in parts a social construct and depends on the viewer" well there are differences between humans and human populations but still i say in "part" a social construct similar to the one drop rule, which is clearly a cultural context and a social construct, a dominican explained that dominicans do not consider themselfes neither white nor black because they historically were not subjugated to the one drop rule, but african americans apply the one drop rule.

[Petalpusher]

It's really Southern Eurasia + various levels of SSA or Oceanian. I don't think it makes a lot of sense overall as a group. At least MENA is one comprehensive combination.

[Mortimer]

It's really Southern Eurasia + various levels of SSA or Oceanian. I don't think it makes a lot of sense overall as a group. At least MENA is one comprehensive combination.

It makes sense if we consider Islam as dominant unifying factor, in the whole region from northafrica to southasia islam is the dominant religion.

[Petalpusher]

It makes sense if we consider Islam as dominant unifying factor, in the whole region from northafrica to southasia islam is the dominant religion.

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.

[Mortimer]

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.

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.

[Petalpusher]

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.

If you want to abide into the so called cultural construct of race Morti yes, but if we stick to the ground truth it's just too big and diverse of a grouping. It spans over something like half of humanity that MENASA, while Europe, excluding non Western Russians is tiny spec in comparison, or in the same way East Asia proper (without SEA) is as well.

https://i.postimg.cc/vZf6v4HN/maky25.jpg

[Mortimer]

If you want to abide into the so called cultural construct of race Morti yes, but if we stick to the ground truth it's just too big and diverse of a grouping. It spans over something like half of humanity that MENASA, while Europe, excluding non Western Russians is tiny spec in comparison, or in the same way East Asia proper (without SEA) is as well.

https://i.postimg.cc/vZf6v4HN/maky25.jpg

Im just playing devils advocate that under some context it could make sense but i do not abide to it

[Abdelnour]

Interesting theory, but this is way too far flung and with nothing binds them other than religion, that Morti has mentioned. According to the map, Armenians are similar to Tamils than their neighbors.

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).

Maybe Iran Neolithic genetic components is what binds them together if we were to propose this "MENASA" idea.

[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.

[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/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Global_genetic_distances_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/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Global_genetic_distances_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?

119240

[OrthodoxHipster]

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

119240

Skin color isn't the only factor, but generally speaking, yes; not every country, but I brown continuum appears to exist.119241

[Abdelnour]

Skin color isn't the only factor, but generally speaking, yes; not every country, but I brown continuum appears to exist.119241

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.

[Petalpusher]

Skin color isn't the only factor, but generally speaking, yes; not every country, but I brown continuum appears to exist.https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FSLjz-hUYAAbfYi?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

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.


https://bible-history.com/images/common/genesis_shem_ham_japheth.jpg

[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.


https://bible-history.com/images/common/genesis_shem_ham_japheth.jpg

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.

[Petalpusher]

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

Yet nobody lumps black labradors and cane corso as the same race just because they have the same apparent fur coloring and somewhat lookalike from afar, so no good reason to do it for humans either. Race isn't much about skin color, it's just an underlying effect of race and the handy simplification we use as we are visual creatures, its mostly an adaptation to climate that can change rapidly, not the deeply rooted biological defining factor.

[earthling1]

I'd like India to have its own category instead of always being lumped with other Asians who look nothing like us. We actually look closer to MENA than to a Japanese. In the US, i always feel weird about checking the Asian checkbox for race. If they can have categories for Black and Hispanic, why not a category for Indians, all 1 billion of us. Why do we get lumped with Filipinos, Vietnamese, Chinese, Koreans when we have nothing in common? It's worse in the UK, here Indians are the default Asians. I get it, given the history, but there are lots of Mongoloid Asians here now. If these checkboxes are trying to categorize people, they're not doing a good job with Indians at all. An obvious solution is to split Asian into South Asian (India/Pak/Bangladesh/Nepal/Sri Lanka/Maldives) and East Asian(rest of Asia).

[kingmob]

Rofl, no.

[OrthodoxHipster]

Yet nobody lumps black labradors and cane corso as the same race just because they have the same apparent fur coloring and somewhat lookalike from afar, so no good reason to do it for humans either. Race isn't much about skin color, it's just an underlying effect of race and the handy simplification we use as we are visual creatures, its mostly an adaptation to climate that can change rapidly, not the deeply rooted biological defining factor.

While I agree that race is more than just skin color, with all due respect, grouping black Labradors and cane corsos is a piss-poor analogy. Morphologically, these two breeds are distinctly different; they don’t look alike.

Conversely, Oceanic Negroids and SSAs do look alike. At a minimum, both peoples have black skin & hair and kinky hair, major defining characteristics. If you asked most people to identify the race of an Oceanic Negroid and an SSA, I’d argue that they would both be labeled black, not just because this is the color of their skin, but given their phenotypic affinity.

I disagree with your definition of race. In my opinion, race is purely physical and morphological. Under this framework “deep-rooted biological differences” (like genotype), are trivial for the purpose of grouping people; race is supposed to be a “handy simplification we use as…visual creatures”. (That’s not to say that we shouldn’t have genotypic groupings for the purpose of medicine and the like).

[OrthodoxHipster]

I'd like India to have its own category instead of always being lumped with other Asians who look nothing like us. We actually look closer to MENA than to a Japanese. In the US, i always feel weird about checking the Asian checkbox for race.

Finally, someone who gets it.

[chinshen]

119238

According to the racial scheme of 17th century German historian and geographer, Georgius Hornius, the Japhetites (identified as Scythians, an Iranic ethnic group and Celts) are "white" (albos), the Aethiopians and Chamae are "black" (nigros), and the Indians and Semites are "brownish-yellow" (flavos), while the Jews, following Mishnah Sanhedrin, are exempt from the classification being neither black nor white but "light brown" (buxus, the color of boxwood).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_terminology_for_race#cite_note-8)

MENASA, is short for the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MENA#cite_note-50) Its usage consists of the region of MENA together with South Asia, with Dubai chosen by the United Nations as the data hub for the region.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MENA#cite_note-TA-6) In some contexts, specifically the Lauder Institute at the University of Pennsylvania, the region is abbreviated as SAMENA instead of the more common MENASA.

This is the biggest horseshit thread that I have seen in a long while. I don't know what your intentions are, but I know that deep inside you you don't believe in such a none sense. Referencing old testament as a credible source for human genetics is laughable.
MENA itself is not a real coherent term. I can see Middle East as a separate region from North Africa, genetics has proven that.

[OrthodoxHipster]

This is the biggest horseshit thread that I have seen in a long while. I don't know what your intentions are, but I know that deep inside you you don't believe in such a none sense. Referencing old testament as a credible source for human genetics is laughable.
MENA itself is not a real coherent term. I can see Middle East as a separate region from North Africa, genetics has proven that.

Why're you so mad, bro? You clearly haven't read the rest of the thread.

I made my thoughts on race clear:
• “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.”

Race is more than your myopic definition of “human genetics”. As I told @Petalpusher, “race is…physical and morphological. Under this framework ‘deep-rooted biological differences’ (like genotype), are trivial for the purpose of grouping people; race is supposed to be a ‘handy simplification we use as…visual creatures’. (That’s not to say that we shouldn’t have genotypic groupings for the purpose of medicine and the like)”.

Nevertheless, people don’t run DNA tests on others before labeling them a particular race. Consequently, much racial classification is in direct conflict with humam genetics. As I told @Petalpusher, “if race has to do with physical appearance and not genotype [(as I believe it does)], then both Oceanic Negroids and SSA are Black.

Moreover, 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; I’m not referencing [the] old testament as a credible source for human genetics because I’m not talking about genotype as much as phenotype:

‘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”.

Coincidentally, the only thing that’s horesh∗t here is your understand of race.