Talk:Extra-European Caucasoid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

It would be good to have some cites using the term or information on who originated the term. Googling, I can't find any use of "Midean" with the meaning given here, except possibly the questionable-looking

I don't know of any scientists who maintain that Caucasoids outside of Europe form a taxonomically or genetically distinct group.

Unless the term does turn out to be commonly used or have some scientific support, it would be better omitted. --JWB 18:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this one should be omitted, as it is not commonly used. There is no absolute cut-off point between any two "racial" groups, and European and extra-European Caucasoids are no exception. However, L.L. Cavalli-Sforza, among others, has grouped European Caucasoids and extra-European into separate clusters within the Caucasoid grouping based analysis of gene frequencies, just as "Caucasoids" and "Mongoloids" are relatively distinct clusters within the greater Northern Eurasian genetic "supercluster."

--GCL-- 21 May 2005

I'm looking at figures 2.3.2.A and B on page 78 of Cavalli-Sforza's History and Geography of Human Genes... they give slightly different results, but neither has European vs. Middle Eastern, North African and Indian as a branch point. In A, the first split is Lapp vs. other, then North Africa, Middle East, and Europe vs. India and SE India, then Sardinian branches off from other European, North African, and Middle Eastern. In B, first SE Indian splits off, then Lapp, then N. African, then Sardinian, then Indian, next Greek stays with Iranian and SW Asian while splitting from 4 other European samples.

Where is the word "Midean" from? --JWB 15:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I have the abridged version of the book, and page 79 (2.3.c.) lists nine clusters of 42 populations sampled, and European Caucasoids and Extra-Europeon Caucasoids are two of the nine clusters. Generally, in analyses I've read regarding Caucasoids, the main distinction made is between those of European descent and those of non-European descent, with some obvious overlap. North Africans are primarily descended from Middle Eastern migrants from the late Paleolithic era, while Europeans are primarily descended from earlier Mideastern migrants. There is dispute as to where "proto-Caucasoids" originated-- traditionally it has been thought that West Asia and/or Central Asia was the starting point, but Stephen Oppenheimer has argued that the northern part of South Asia is the point of origin, with migrations occuring over the last 40,000 years or so into Central & West Asia, then Europe and North Africa. But most Europeans are primarily descended from early migrants from the Middle East and Central Asia, with most West Asians/North Africans and South Asians somewhat more distant cousins to most European populations than European populations are to each other.

I've had email contacts with various people I know who have analyzed genetic studies and maintained contacts with anthrologists and geneticists such as Colin Groves, Stephen Oppenheimer, C. Loring Brace (who doesn't believe in "race" but believes in "geographical" groups that are identical to modern racial classification), Christy Turner and others. I have had some contact with Chris Stringer, and will email him on this issue in the near future. Anyway, they use the term Midean (similar to Mideastern) but I don't think it is widely used at all. Is there any way I can keep the definition for "Midean" but change the terminology-- say, to "Extra-European Caucasoid"?

BTW, I'll respond to your other response (Eurasiatic Supercluster) when I have time.

--GCL-- 23 May 2005

Thanks for the quick response. I also have the abridged paperback edition. The beginning of section 2.3.c seems to say that he is choosing to group samples into arbitrary but "reasonably compact" clusters for convenience in further analysis. He doesn't say that extra-European caucasoids have been found to form a descent group on a par with Europeans; it may be that extra-European caucasoids contain several groups on the same level as Europeans. I'm guessing that he wanted these clusters to contain similar numbers of samples, and the number of European samples is comparable to the number of non-European samples.

It's good to know "Midean" comes from scientists in this field. I don't really like the word, but if it is the most established word for this concept, I'm fine with it. Googling seems to show the word is not established in usage on the web, but it could be too new and still more established than other alternatives. But, my biggest concern is not the name, but whether the concept (of non-European Caucasoids as a cladistic group and not just an assumption or artifact of analysis) is valid.

BTW, populations around the Mediterreanean were traditionally classified as a "Mediterreanean race". We now know it's more complicated than that, with somewhat isolated mountain populations like Sardinians, Berbers and Basques having their own particular genetic signatures, but the point stands that genetic boundaries do not necessarily coincide with the geographical boundary between Europe and Asia.

--JWB 05:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Midean, I didn't mean to suggest that the scientists mentioned above used the word "Midean," only that those who have had contact with them support the European Caucasoid/extra-European Caucasoid distinction. I actually would like to replace the term "Midean" here with "Extra-European Caucasoid," if that is possible, while retaining the definintion. It is not uncommon for such a distinction to be made, so I would like to retain the definition but change the terminology.

Regarding the term "Mediterranean," it clearly should be applied only to Southern Europeans, and not to any non-European populations.

--GCL-- 28 May 2005

OK, I agree that Midean should be moved to something like extra-European Caucasoid or non-European Caucasoid or North African, Middle Eastern, and South Asian Caucasoid; please go ahead. "Midean" is prone to confusion with a couple of other things, so if it isn't actually a current term, let's not make it one. I'd also like to take a look at any other neologisms in the related articles, pointers would be welcome.

The article should say whether this group is a result of statistical analysis of genetic data, or is just an assumption made in advance in order to facilitate analysis of a dataset where Europeans are more heavily represented; or if there's persistent disagreement about it, mention both points of view and which scientific papers or personal communications from scientists advocate each. My reading of the passage from the Cavalli-Sforza book is that it's an assumption. (In general, a problem with a lot of the Wikipedia articles in this area is that they don't give any cites and don't document changes in the meaning of a term over time.)

Mediterranean_race does document that the term's scope sometimes included North Africans. But that's another page and any further debate about the term can take place there.

By the way, the definition of Caucasoid and who is in the group seems to be controversial. You might be interested in the discussion happening at the Caucasoid page.

I move for "Extra-European Caucasoid," since that is the term most often used. As for the definition of Caucasoid, Cavalli-Sforva states in his book that the proto-Dravidians were likely a Caucasoid people and that the non-Caucasoid peoples of Southern India and Sri Lanka actually belonged to different, as yet unknown, language group. And you were right to take out the passage that included Ethiopians as Caucasoid. The main problem with racial classification is it is a generalization, not an absolute. There are no absolute cut-off points, and different groups can interbreed. Still, different breeds of dogs and cats can interbreed, so the argument that cats and dogs can be classified racially but humans can't doesn't seem to make much sense (save for political reasons).

Here is an essay regarding Afrocentrism/Eurocentrism by Timothy Kendal I was linked to:

The friend I mentioned on Eurasiatic Supercluster page would be a great contributer to this debate, as he's quite knowledgable on the subject and is fully aware of the different points of view out there. He told me that there numerous discussions about race at a Yahoo! group a few years back where very well known anthropologists would debate lesser known anthropologists, and the lesser known anthropologists would usually mop the floor with them. I think it's because the better known anthropologists try too hard to be politically correct.

BTW, the Oxford American Dictionary and the Columbia Encyclopedia do not state that terms like "Caucasoid" are no longer in scientific use (scientists use them all the time), and I believe the latest edition of the American Heritage Dictionary deleted its contention that these terms are no longer in scientific use, also (the previous edition had stated that racial terms were no longer in scientific use).



Could we add a cite of a scientific paper or book using the word "Midean", or pull the word completely? Thanks! --JWB 04:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pull the word completely. -- Cryptico 15 June 2005


I think the main concern with this article is that the entire idea of extra european is an obvious biased classification,as if europeans actually migrated anywhere except europe as a people,granted they colonized the world eventually,millenia after everyone else.the africans colinized the middle east and asia the asians migrated to the south pasific and americas,and the europeans stayed in euope until thousands of years later,so the question is why not extra -africoid,or extra- mongoloid, seems suspect ,the scientist obviosly has a bias,a eurocentric point of view race has no dividing line thats y the concept of race is purley a socioeconimic population control tool.dont believe everything u read .

This is silly[edit]

This appears to be simply eurocentrism and I want some proof of this. No links, no books or cites, no evidence. Not even in the dictionary. This has been clearly made up by a few people who are upset here. I want links that explain how these people are European and how they are caucasoid and what makes them extra. Otherwise the next thing we know the afrocentrist will come here and claim everyone is black or extra african negroid and we will have more silly edit wars. Do people really want this for things that both sides know don't exist

"Extra" means "outside". "Extra-European" in this case means "in places other than Europe". It does not mean "more European".
I was the one complaining in the lengthy earlier discussion about possible eurocentrism and possible insufficient established usage. However the article now is largely about discussing the possible eurocentrism of the concept, and I did find usage of the concept in Cavalli-Sforza's book.
POVs criticizing the concept may be incorporated in an article, but they do not justify revising the established definition of the concept, which is idiosyncratic usage and against Wikipedia policy.
If you want to create or contribute to a page about some theory that whoever is black, go ahead. It will be judged on the same Wikipedia policy criteria of whether it is documenting a concept that is or has been in established use, not whether the concept is good or not; there are lots of articles documenting ideas that nobody has believed for centuries, like Flat Earth. --JWB 23:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

If you think for one second that my goal is to establish a super black race your thoughts are deeply perverted and misplaced. Simply claimin everyone as white is a sic mentally of white supremist not eurocentrist. This is discrediting wikipedia and makes us looks like retards. The defintion is not what you claim it to be. It is simply people in west asia not africa or china or india.

Refer to Cavalli-Sforza's "The History and Geography of Human Genes", pages 77-79 for the definition. --JWB 04:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)