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

[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]

Attachment 119238

According to the racial scheme of 17^th 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]

MENASA, is short for the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia.^[2] 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] 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.