Why are people in the middle east considered white?

If humans are a subspecies, what is the larger subspecies the human race is a part of?

 

Subspecies is under species. Homo sapiens is a species.

 

and this accuses you of being a racist how exactly?

- - - Updated - - -

and all of the above are part of the human race .. there is only one race, the human race.

- - - Updated - - -

There is only one race, the human race.

The only people who have an over active interest in whether someone is white, black etc etc are those that wish to make believe it creates differences in intellect etc and that agenda is not to inform it is to demean.

 

You said that the only people who are interested in whether a person is white are people who want to demean non whites because they think non whites are less intelligent than whites. I am not prejudiced against people based on their or physical appearance or race, but I still find the topic of studying cultures and humanity to be very interesting.

Some North Africans (not all, some ethnic groups) look very similar to southern Europeans (olive skin, dark hair and eyes) and vice versa. They are considered white, even though they are from Africa. I think the concept of human race is an interesting concept.

 

So you don't meet what I stated, therefore the question remains WHERE AM I ACCUSING YOU OF BEING RACIST? .. though it is telling that you assumed I was calling you a racist even without a shred of anything to back it up.

Nothing but variations of the same model. Race is nothing more than a social concept used to separate humans into distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, and/or social affiliation.

 

The whole topic of the thread I created is why people who lived in southwest asia are considered white. I was arguing that they arent white. You said people who are interested in who is white are not, have an agenda to demean others.

Why do you disagree with the concept of race?

 

Lol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

Define race and show how humans are only one race.

- - - Updated - - -

Isn't everything a "social concept" by that definition? Trees are a "social concept", Political Forum poster Fugazi is a "social concept". So what?

"Nothing more than a social concept" defined by biological criteria.

Also you confuse the issue by adding some other guy's definition as if multiple defintions invalidate any defintion. Race is defined on purely biological criteria by anyone I read.

 

and my answer stands, what difference does it make what a persons skin colour is?

Because it is nothing more than a social concept, there is no biological facts that you are of any different 'race' from a Nigerian farmer.

 

White is a metaphor for a group defined by genetic similarity. Skin color is totally irrelevant. We can use the term 'European associated genetic cluster' if 'White' confuses you.

Actually a randomly selected White will always be genetically more similar to another White than a racial Nigerian. So they are a different race.

 

Hmm.. wasn't asked for any proof, neither did my comment state it was proof . .have you never heard of an opinion .. guess not.

Why, would it make any difference to your mindset .. perhaps if people like you concentrated less on what you perceive makes various humans different the world would be in a better position than it is now.

Pretty much everything is.

We are all part of the human race, do you deny that, why do you feel the need to place such merit on minor differences. Do you get some sort of superiority climax out of it?

You are entitled to follow what ever definition you want to .. just as I am.

Selective reading will do that don't you know.

Scientists for decades have agreed that race is not scientifically valid, because human are genetically the same based on varied DNA samples. However, in reality, people are still ignorant on this fact, and still categorized others into races based on skin color or hair texture. This in turn caused great discrimination and promotes inequality. They need to realized that races are defined based on cultural values than biological construction.

 

1-I didnt mention skin color on this thread-I mentioned race classification. The topic of this thread is whether or not (and why) middle eastern and north african people are in the same race category/classification as Europeans, since some of the people in those regions look similar to people in certain regions of Europe (partially based on skin color), and some dont. The term "white" is mainly associated with European people, so whether or not people from other continents and regions should be considered white is an interesting concept.

2-We have different physical characteristics, and skin color is just one of them. People of African descent have certain facial features that people from other parts of the world dont have-this is evident by the fact that even albino people from africa still have black features.

 

No we are part of the human subspecies which divides into races based on genetic similarity.

 

How snarky of you .. good to see the usual responses are alive and kicking.

There are no specific genes that determine a persons "race". Exploration of the genome has shown that all humans, whatever their "race", share the same set of genes. Each gene exists in a variety of alternative forms known as alleles, so one might suppose that races have distinguishing alleles, but even this is not the case. A few alleles have highly skewed distributions but these do not suffice to explain the difference between "races". The difference between "races" seems to rest on the subtle matter of relative allele frequencies. The overwhelming verdict of the genome is to declare the basic unity of humankind.

Genetic differences make up only 5-15% of the total amount of genetic variation. Most of the genetic variation among humans has nothing to do with differences in populations. The genetic differences between 'races' are minor compared to the differences between people in general.

The debate over race and intelligence has a long and tarnished history, although that doesn't mean it's not a legitimate scientific question to address. However, the debate has taken place almost entirely outside modern genetics, falling instead within the realm of psychology (such as work done by Arthur Jensen). Some writers would have you believe that science is converging on a consensus that the 'IQ' gap between various races is genetic (and that liberal conspirators are trying to cover it up). That claim is false. Researchers have not identified a single genetic variant with an impact on intelligence that falls along population lines. In fact several studies have recently tested variants in genes that appear to be involved in controlling brain size. No correlation with intelligence was found. Yes, genetics does play a significant role in intelligence, and many other traits. But there is simply no genetic evidence (and I mean real genetics, not psychology) for genetic differences in intelligence between human populations.

Racial conflict has long been a part of human societies. Along with that conflict has come frequent speculation (most famously, but not exclusively among whites with European ancestry) that one race is inferior to another. Some have been worried that modern genetics would substantiate that belief, but our best genetic evidence to date shows those worries unfounded. Genetics does play a large role in the diversity we find among human beings. That diversity, in spite of some dramatic but superficial exceptions like skin color, is shared in common among all races.

 

and none of that indicates that you are a different "race" to a Nigerian farmer . .If you wish to base "race" purely on observable differences that is your choice, the reality is that there is very little genetic difference between you and any other person on this planet.

 

The differential variation between humans and chimps is 18%. They haven't found genes for height. They will. The evidence is the IQ differences themselves.

 

I disagree, there are not enough genetic differences between the so called "races" for it to be significant enough to declare that 'x' is one race and 'y' is another.

 

Quite possibly, still does not change that a person 4ft 5inches tall is not a different "race" to a person 7ft tall.

 

Any difference validates a taxonomy.

 

Correct because race is based on genomic similarity.

 

True, but there is a lot of physical appearance difference.

 

You know that there are millions of base pair differences which could cause massive phenotypic differences?

 

Yes I know there are millions of base pairs and the telling point of your response is the "could", whether it could isn't really relevant, what is relevant is what actual differences have been caused and are those differences enough to declare 'x' is of one race and 'y' another.

- - - Updated - - -

there are a lot of physical differences between you and any other person regardless of their skin colour etc .. I am assuming you are white, and you have marked differences from any other white person .. does that make you or them a different race?

 

Yes, but as a general population, whites have similar features (ie, considerably light skin, but skin tone can vary depending on ethnicity), but overall they dont have drastically different features. For example, most white people dont look like people from south asia, and vice versa.

 

What race is someone who is 1/4 of each of your races?

 

Mixed race, I guess.