Talk:Negroid

Archive #1 Archive #2 Archive #3 Archive #4 Archive #5

Skeptical of racial maps

Who keeps adding these racial maps to wikipedia? They seem inaccurate and are very hard to confirm. Also, people keep confusing negroid with congoid. Congoid and capoid are subdivisions within the category "negroid" Bluescientist (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"racial maps" obviously can never be more reliable than the concept of "race" itself, which is shaky and fluid to say the least. All these maps can only ever be used to illustrate historic opinion of a given author, not "truth". --dab (𒁳) 18:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Move

Negroid to Negroid race To fall in line with the other race articles:

• Caucasoid race
• Capoid race
• Mongoloid race
• Australoid race

--Hayden4258 (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

its done. 203.14.52.41 (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Parallelism

The searches "Mongoloid" and "Caucasoid" redirect to the articles "Mongoloid Race" and "Caucasian Race", respectively. These and other comparable articles should probably be more standard. Most articles in the series are formatted like Mongoloid, i.e., "-oid Race", so that would be a simple solution. Also, that format seems to be the most consistent with historical use of the terms, the essential idea of the articles. I am not sure what has been said on this topic in the past, but I cannot see anything wrong with adding "Race" to the end of this article's title. On the other hand, people seem to care more about "Caucasian Race" in its discussion; maybe "Caucasoid Race" could be created with some of that page's material to be more in line with "Negroid (Race)" and "Mongoloid Race" while a less similarly entitled article on Caucasians could contain the rest. Really, the terms "Caucasoid", "Mongoloid", and "Negroid" seem to actually be the most standard and colloquial, but the addition of "Race" helps to clarify that more than just an analysis of the words themselves, but also the historical concepts behind them is included within the articles. DearthOfMateriel 07:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The "modern" terms listed on the template at the bottom of the article--Black people, White people, and Asian people are just the same three terms, Negroid race, Caucasian race, and Mongoloid race under different names. So it is just different terminology for the same concept. Keraunos (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hamites & Cavalli-Sforza

An editor keeps adding a paragraph where he cites a study by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza as indicating that a) North Africans and populations from the Horn area are Hamitic, and b) the Hamitic race was considered Caucasian but is now deemed Negroid:

The Hamitic race (regarded as being all those native speakers of Afro-Asiatic languages who were not Semitic) in the 19th century and first half of the 20th century was usually included up to the 1950s as a subrace of the Caucasian race (by white people; African Americans had always regarded the "Hamitic race" as part of their heritage), but by the 1960s (largely in response to the black power movement—the Ancient Egyptians were universally regarded as being part of the "Hamitic race" , and black people wanted everyone to recognize their claim of the Ancient Egyptians as part of their heritage) the "Hamitic race" became regarded as being a subrace of the Negroid race--which was itself renamed in the 1960s by black people as the Black African race. According to Cavalli-Sforza, these "individual groups in Ethiopia and North Africa" (although he does not use the term "Hamitic", the groups he lists in the text as being closest to each other genetically (Tuareg, Beja, Tigri, Amhara, Cushitic, etc. ) are roughly synonomous with the ethnic groups that used to be referred to as “Hamitic”), are genetically 60% sub-Saharan African and 40% Caucasian.

The study, however, does not mention Hamites, and clearly indicates that the North African and Horn populations are distinct from Sub-Saharan populations (no mention of any "Negroid race"). Here's what the study does actually conclude on the same page 174 that is footnoted above:

"In summary, the information available on individual groups in Ethiopia and North Africa is fairly limited but sufficient to show that they are all separate from sub-Saharan Africans and that North Africans and East Africans (Ethiopian and neighbors) are also clearly separate."

I have therefore removed the paragraph since it is clearly original research. Soupforone (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

obsolete??

People when I studied in high school, in the biological textbook were counted Europeoid, Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid races. If the term is obsolete in your country due to polit-correctness, please do not expand these feeling on other countries.--MathFacts (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Also it seems that the source that claims the term is obsolete aslo claims that there are no human races at all: a system for classifying people based on the false assumption that humans can be unambiguously placed into "races" on the basis of selected traits such as skin color, hair form, and body shape. Advocates of this approach incorrectly believe that there are more or less distinct populations of people from different geographic regions. Negroid, Mongoloid, and Caucasoid are examples of typological groupings. I think this is a very biased approach, if not fringe.--MathFacts (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Also this source http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Negroid_race does not say this grupping is "obsolete".--MathFacts (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It is still used in forensics, it seems. FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Obsolete is correct. You can check some sources here. The newest sources on medical genetics are especially good. I am still adding sources to the list, and have hardly begun editing articles on the basis of the sources I have gathered yet, but there is a lot of new information on this subject. Editors who know of current, reliable sources are welcome to mention those as suggestions for additions to the source list. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 11:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think the sources on medical genetics are relevant? I think the notion of race has very little meaning in medicine. Why then not cite sources on sociology, sexology, cosmetology, esthetics, climatology etc where the notion of race is much more relevant?--MathFacts (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Either way, the citation at the start DOES NOT suggest Negroid as an obsolete term, The opposite in fact: It's a list of terms that ARE used when describing human variation. Anyway, there is NO citation on the page that suggests the terms are obsolete, and in fact, the penultimate paragraph actually states the term IS still used, and merely suggests the PC brigade are against it. (I've also seen a recent programme in which Negroid and Caucasoid were used concerning Craniometry.) The page also states Mongoloid and Caucasoid are obsolete, their own pages don't even state such a thing. Seems suspect to me that WeijiBaikeBianji's link merely shows references THEY believe are "suitable"; seems very POV to me. I'm getting rid of the suggestions of "Obselete" until WeijiBaikeBianji or another can provide suitable citations (also, keep in mind that just because SOME scientists believe the term is obsolete, that DOES not mean the term is 100% obsolete, which is currently suggests - unless the UN of Race Science Newspeak deems it to be the case. Even Scientists discourage things or don't believe things because they're too busy wanting their hypothesis to be true.... I know I don't have a citation, but I've also seen a discussion which Hematologists/Geneticists generally believed such groupings were obsolete, and Osteologists were the opposite.) --Kurtle (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Once again it seems that if you don't agree with a certain viewpoint on controversial subject such as this, its automatically labeled "PC". Do people even know what that term means anymore? Anyway, craniometrics (especially the works of Coon) is not considered particularly valid in modern science. I rarely, if ever see terms like "Caucasoid", "Negroid", etc used outside the realm of online armchair anthropology and such in a modern context. Usually terms such as "West Eurasian" or "Sub-saharan African" are used more frequently. The point here is that this topic is strongly associated with 19th century and early 20th century anthropology, and really does not reflect a modern view.

AlecTrevelyan402(Click Here to leave a message)

Political Correctness: saying/doing something simply not to upset or offend someone (e.g. changing the word "negroid" to "sub-saharan" to not upset peoples oversensitivities - "negroid" and "sub-saharan" aren't even the same thing, "negroid" can encompass certain asian groups aswell). And as stated: negroid, mongoloid and caucasoid have definately used by modern scientists, on modern documentaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.51.81 (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

ORIGIN OF HUMAN RACES

IF ALL RACES OF HOMO SAPIENS HAVE EVOLVED FROM A COMMON ANCESTRAL STOCK HOMO ERACTUS THEN DIFFERENT RACES VIZ CAUCASOID, MONGOLOID, DRAVIDIAN AND NEGROID WHY BECAME HAVING DIFFERENT COLOR AND PHYSICAL APPEARANCE ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.110.140.167 (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)