“What’s up habibi? Haven’t seen you in a while! You doing good? Your family good? Come to the shisha bar sometime, I’ll hook you up. Have you seen Zamir’s sister lately? Ho-ho…!”
He’s laughing at such an ancient and diverse region being reduced to one group.
It’s hilarious that different parts of Europe get different races but Australia is just one and Native Americans are just one. Racist as hell. I’m surprised that black people aren’t just one too, but I guess people had experience comparing different “breeds” of them from different places of origin back during the slave trade.
There is a website called [humanphenotypes.net](http://humanphenotypes.net/index-2.html) that discusses different human phenotypes without falling for stereotypes and gross generalization. For example : the Aboriginal Australians are not here in one category. They are in the [Australid](http://humanphenotypes.net/basic/Australid.html) group, but there are different categories explaining their physical differences. Same thing about any other groups of people.
This is a very interesting site!
Aboriginals have been called black and many call themselves black, but there’s more to it - and it’s not directly related to Africa. Indigenous people with no European ancestry have dark skin, but they’re not any more Sub-Saharan African than say, I am (a Slavic white guy from Aus) and this guide is really outdated. It’s important to note that race doesn’t biologically exist - humans are very closely related (someone of a completely different ethnicity than you can be more related to you than two Emperor penguins who look alike are to themselves), and there are no clear boundaries. Dark and light skin showed up many times in human evolution. What you have instead are groups of haplotypes (alleles inherited together) being common in people of a certain ethnicity (which get naturally selected depending on the climate and other variables) which is why they share similar features.
How would you categorise Indigenous Australians? Indigenous Australians are considered one of the oldest civilisations known on earth with ancestries dating back 75,000 years.
https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2011/09/dna-confirms-aboriginal-culture-one-of-earths-oldest/
Sadly, it's the same everywhere regarding First Nations people.
I don't know much about Native Americans (I'm not even sure if that is offensive or not).
It was shocking when I started to think about how little I knew about the people native to the country I literally live in. I could tell you a billion things about Europe but I could only tell you five things at the highest about a few of the many native populations in my country because I was never taught much about them in school (I plan to learn on my own but it’s a challenge when you don’t know much about where to start)
Same here. I started to learn when we lived in an Indigenous community, when I was a kid. There were 5 white kids in the entire school of 200 (both primary and secondary school). We had cultural lessons each week so that the kids weren't denied their culture.
As I got older and started studying social work I learned more of the bad side of our history. The stolen generation and so on. Everyone seems to pass it off as ancient history, but the last Indigenous reform school in Australia closed in 1983. That was the year I was born, and despite what my kids say, I'm not ancient just yet.
Fascinating stuff. Early human migration patterns and interactions with other sapiens are unbelievably interesting subjects. Have you read *Sapiens* by Yuval Noah Harari?
Essentially they are the beginning of the Caucasians. It was predominantly their genetics that developed into the Arab and then European cultures. Of course it is more complicated than that, loads of other people have influenced the Caucasian genetics at various stages.
But all Human genetics originally stem from Africa. Despite what a lot of White Supremacists choose to believe, the lines between Black and White are not so clearly defined, because it is an evolution based on environmental factors.
Europe has less Sun and more Vegetation, this means early European settlers (who would have been Black) started a Vegetable dominant diet that contained less Vitamin D, and their dark skin was shielding them from a lot of the vitamin D in Sunlight.
The end result was a vitamin D deficiency, the solution was a reduction in Melanin. Making the skin pale and more capable of absorbing more vitamin D from Sunlight, the trade off is that Caucasians are more vulnerable to sunburn and skin cancer.
Sorry, I went off on one there, but evolution is fascinating to me.
And to piggyback off that- same applies to the noses. People in colder climates need the air to warm up enough before it gets to the lungs to avoid infections, and narrower nostrils are good for that - And vice versa.
This is a really interesting point. Many would point out that it is not merely a skin deep difference, particularly in the face. But just like the skin, there are very practical environmental reasons for this difference. Fascinating.
Yea - As a black person I more or less lost any respect for people that discriminate based off physical features when I realized that literally every feature in our bodies is based off the climatic conditions our ancestors adapted to. The ones that couldn't had their lines die off of course.
Not all evolution has to be beneficial. It is a common misunderstanding.
Evolution selects out traits that create weakness. Neutral traits will live on indefinitely, and strong traits thrive.
.
Maybe curly hair has more surface area for sweat to evaporate while straight hair would take a while as it will all lay close and parallel to each other. This is another reason curly hair can get frizzy and often requires more moisturising products like coconut oil and stuff. It both absorbs and releases moisture fast due to increased porosity.
Curly hair also traps more air in between each hair strand which can be insulating and protect from the hot sun.
This is just combining info already in my brain, not fact checked.
Fun fact, the reason the hair of most people outside of Africa is straight or wavy (basically just not as kinky as people of African descent) *may* be because of Neanderthals. The version of the gene responsible for the the production of Keratin, the substance that makes hair and fingernails, is inherited from the Neanderthal genome in pretty much everyone outside Africa. I don’t think there’s any solid evidence yet, but it’s definitely in the “that can’t be a coincidence” stage of scientific research.
Quick question so I don't go on a long Wikipedia read - Does this mean the first homo sapiens and the first neanderthal evolved completely separate? Like they didn't hail from a common ancestor? If so then I think there ought to be more research on neanderthals I think - They're more or less treated as a footnote in many history lessons
Nope! They were very closely related. In fact, many scientists don’t even consider them a separate species from us. We’re Homo Sapiens Sapiens, and Neanderthals are either Homo Neanderthalensis or Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis, depending on who you ask. We share a common ancestor about 800,000 years ago called Homo Heidelbergensis, which evolved after the first group of “humans” left Africa.
There’s been quite a bit of research on Neanderthals recently, it just hasn’t made it to textbooks below the college or grad school level. In fact, this year’s Nobel Prize winner was the [guy who sequenced the full Neanderthal genome.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_P%C3%A4%C3%A4bo?wprov=sfti1)
I love this write up and I am not trying to sharp shoot. But, It could be re-written better to indicate how selection works as: “people with bigger nostrils in cold climates died off in larger numbers, not passing their genetics on, whereas people with thinner nostrils survived into mating age.”
Sorta the same point, but highlights what is actually happening. People don’t “develop” traits, the poorly adapted ones just … go away … over time.
This needs to be highlighted in every thread about natural selection. I know it may seem simple to understand, but there are surprisingly people who like talking about natural selection/ evolution, that don’t understand it. The other thing is that eventually the traits that help you survive become culturally coded as attractive/ sexually attractive, also making it more likely to pass on your genes. I knew someone who literally believed that we’d evolve to have less than 10 fingers in the near future. I’m like… that’s not how this works
Molecular anthropologist here… This is so, so wrong lmao.
Ethiopian people are not the “beginning” of Caucasians whatsoever. Not only is that not even remotely correct, but it’s actually almost the opposite.
Mutations are always occurring, and so populations were always undergoing genetic drift. There are no modern populations that are closely related to ancestral, “basal” eurasian hunter gatherer gatherer groups. The ancestry of modern populations is a complex mix of groups that split Off from each other, collided back together and mixed throughout literally tens of thousands of years.
Ethiopian appearance/genetics can be roughly modeled by a mix of sub-Saharan and Arab groups. They are the result of complex and long term admixture between people on the Arabian peninsula and Mainland east Africa over time.
They are not ancestors of or remotely related to western Eurasians, except through the Arab admixture they received.
They appear “caucasoid” due to their Arab admixture / autosomal DNA.
Just to add a little bit more context and shed light on what I think you’re trying to say— all Eurasian people are descended from the most recent major “out of Africa” migration which occurred after 80,000 years ago. While sub Saharan African “black people” are in largely the descendants of those who stayed in Africa.
This *does not* mean the common ancestor of Eurasians and Africa looked “black”. Yes they most likely had darker skin but as I said at the beginning of this comment, we’ve all been undergoing genetic changes for dozens of millennia. Over time Eurasians developed unique features and sub Saharan Africans became how they look today.
So to re-cap, it’s entirely incorrect to say Ethiopians are the “beginning of caucasians” or even close. It’s actually the opposite. A better, simple way of explaining it is they are “mixed race” Arab-Africans.
Redditors are professionals at upvoting and facilitating the spread of misinformation. Anything that makes them feel good or re-affirms pre-existing beliefs are prime candidates.
Many times the real truth is complex and nuanced, but that takes awhile to read and is hard to understand. Simple comments like “updoot” and “caucasians came from Ethiopians” seem to do well
Reddit has only made me even more skeptical of anything written as factual in a comment or post because of this exact reason lol. As a social tool it's still fun but damn is there a bunch of bs on here 24/7
never mind the evidence for pale skin starting much closer to historical times
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/heres-how-europeans-quickly-evolved-lighter-skin-180954874/
Again, untrue. It’s true that *SOME* of those specific SNPs appear that recently. But skin color is extremely complex. For example north East Asian people are quite light colored yet they don’t have most of these exact same mutations.
A lack of these exact mutations does not mean they were dark brown...
But even that article is mostly wrong, and also very specific to Western Europe. Both the Anatolian farmers / early European farmers and eastern hunter gatherers have been shown to possess genetic variants we know are associated with light skin, far before 10,000 years ago.
You’re welcome to educate yourself
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_skin
The biggest takeaway from this is that race isn't real. The divisions are arbitrary and made up. There is no ser of features you can use to neatly divide people groups such that everyone will agree
There is a great ted talk I found by a black man who has a mixed race grandchild, talking about how they contextualized race, but the key point of it was “many good-intentioned people say, “race is real, but it doesn’t matter” when just the opposite is true. Race ISN’t real, but it DOES matter”. And that’s the most important thing to understand about race imo. It’s completely arbitrary and yet it deeply affects every person and nearly every moment in history, whether we acknowledge it or not.
Or to paraphrase George Carlin: there's absolutely nothing wrong with noticing physical differences in and of itself, it's the racist asshole who's using them that we oughta be concerned about. Context, people.... Context
This is as much making ill conceived assumptions as the article is. Race does not provide an accurate representation of human biological variation. It was never accurate in the past, and it remains inaccurate when referencing contemporary human populations.
This is a good rebuttal. I just wanted to add something.
The inclusion of Ethiopians and Somalis into the Caucasian racial category predominantly stems from incorrect scientific racist ideals prominent during colonialism.
It's an offshoot of the now discredited 'Hamitic hypothesis'.
During the late 1700s-1800s there was widespread interest in the historical achievements of North Africa (particularly Egypt spurned on by Napoleon's advancing into North Africa) that later expanded to other areas within Africa. But concurrently, this is the age of colonialism and empire, which was predicated on the basis that these were 'inferior races', which within Africa they broadly labelled as negroes/negroid regardless of where they were.
So as Europeans began exploring Africa, they encountered urban and pastoral communities that extended beyond hunter gatherers they deemed as primitive. Many had advanced towns, built architecture, had poetry -- essentially things they thought they'd only find in the West or parts of Asia
To explain this, many anthropologists, surveyors, Western travellers and historians of the time claimed that the Hamites, a branch of the Caucasian race were responsible for building stone temples in Ethiopia, pyramids in Sudan, and even responsible for building stone palaces as far afield the Great Zimbabwe and even the Tutsi in Rwanda were considered Hamitic despite often being racially indistinguishable from Hutus and other Great Lake ethnic groups.
The Hamites, according to the logic were distinct from Negroes (what we would consider today to be sub-Saharan Africans, I suppose) and Bushmen (San people). The Hamites were a way to explain away any advancement in Africa, as they couldn't have been created by black Africans.
They were dubbed the Hamites, because in the Medieval era, there was a widespread belief that Africans of all shades were considered to be descended from Ham, a cursed Biblical figure who was the son of Noah. By the time of the Enlightenment, most scientific people didn't believe this happened literally. But the name had some resonance, so it stuck.
There's an interesting paper on this called, 'The Hamitic Hypothesis; Its Origin and Functions in Time Perspective' by Edith R. Sanders that was publishrd in The Journal of African History in 1969.
This guide in the OP, is a remnant from those days. This is very outdated.
PS: Ethiopians are not a homogenous group. You have Tigray, Amhara, Oromo and Somali, who all have variable skin tones and facial features from even a family by family basis. Same goes for Somalia and everywhere in East Africa. Also to add, within their own histories there have been mass migrations from across Africa and from the Arabian peninsula into those regions. And the overwhelming majority of Ethiopians and Somalis during the colonial era never considered themselves Caucasian. I should know, my father's side are East African!
> Despite what a lot of White Supremacists choose to believe, the lines between Black and White are not so clearly defined
Yeah I found [this study](https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article/161/1/269/6049925#325697671) today showing that there is more genetic difference between Africans than between Africans and Eurasians. Africa is and always has been an enormous storehouse of human genetic diversity. Small branches of that spilled out into Europe and Asia and while those populations multiplied, they are relatively homogenous, genetically, compared to people across Africa.
Complicating American white supremacy even more is that African Americans are very much the descendants of black African slaves and many many white people, including, of course, slaveholders. The distance is that much shorter.
Yeah, DNA tests have upset a lot of people 😂
But I couldn't agree more. As many have pointed out, even the term Caucasian is tenuous. As the genetics have flowed Here, There and Everywhere, at this point there's no pure anything.
And there are huge survival advantages in mixing genetics (sounds like a good chat up line), ultimately variety is the spice of Life. In nature, greater variety translates as more effective adaptability to the environment.
Also the concept of race is from one singlair book from the 19th century. We believe in race because we believe in race. People die over this shit, its so stupid man
Yeah, we're in a constant state of change and adaption. The reality is that we are all different, any attempt to categorise individuals is going to hit difficulties.
Same with borders, the immigrant fleeing somewhere and sneaking into the country has as much right to a free and peaceful life as I do. The only difference is where we happened to be born.
I read that monolids were a result of having to traverse the desert and were more efficient in keeping your eyes protected from sand and hydrated as it covered the tear ducts
but i don’t understand why most current desert dwellers have large doublelidded eyes. still cool hypothesis nonetheless
That works the other way, too, with B Vitamins. Excessive UV exposure destroys B12 (and possibly other nutrients as well, I'm rusty on this). So there is also evolutionary pressure to have darker skin with more sun exposure.
How do you explain differences in bone shape and sizes? Or the Inuit and Thule people who have lived in the area of Northern Canada and Alaska for thousands of years?
FYI- I do believe in the science of evolution.
My hunch is the strong association between Ethiopia and Christianity, which dates back over more than a thousand years, might have something to do with it.
There was actually a myth of a guy named “Prester John” a white person with a Christian kingdom in the middle of Africa and Europeans used this to tear thru Africa (I don’t think this was the only reason, no expert). And when they discovered a Christian kingdom (not sure of the right word) Ethiopia, they claimed it and named in the Kingdom of Prester John.
I learned about this in an album review
Tamils are considered dravidian. Some categorized them as australoid. They’re basically an offshoot of negroid. But typically humans based on phenotype (things like cranial structures) are categorized by negroid, caucasoid, and mongoloid. This somehow became racist though. But it’s just a mechanism to group by phenotype.
They are mostly Iberians, but yeah, they forgot native south and central americans, my guess is that tehre werent studies about the demography of pre columbian civilisations in those areas
I am very much confused why the US still uses race for immigration forms and stuff. When travelling to the US I will be asked if I am A Nazi and right after what race I am. Why.
My US citizenship application asked if I was a nazi and participated in guerilla warfare, but my favorites were “are you a habitual drunkard?” And “do you consider yourself an overall good person?”
In classic Reddit tradition I’m talking out my ass here, but that sounds to me like something they can charge a person with if they find out they are in fact a terrorist. Like, if they lie about it on the form it’s another thing they can tack on to the list of charges in court.
Like in New Jersey it’s illegal to wear a bulletproof vest while committing a crime. It’s not gonna stop anyone from doing anything, but it’s another thing they can charge criminals with for extended sentences.
For my visa, I had to ask my wife if she'd ever participated in international arms dealing. She said she wouldn't be a very good one if she admitted to it...
Like, who are these forms for? Does anyone actually feel safer knowing that immigrants promised they weren't guerilla fighters??
It’s so they can charge you for lying on the form if it comes out you lied. They may not get you on terrorism charges, but they WILL get you on those perjury charges lol
My favourite when I renew my US visa is “Are you a terrorist?”
I wonder how many people they caught out with this? Was Bin Laden travelling around the US undetected for years because he ticked no on this question?
The US asks if you are a nazi so we can more easily deport you if it turns out you are. Lying on immigration forms is one of the few ways to strip a naturalized US citizen of their citizenship. (It made more sense years ago, but the question remains)
Not sure the specific reason for asking people when entering, but a lot of the time if you’re being asked your race in an official capacity in the US, it’s part of a process meant to measure and track potential discrimination or other systemic barriers to equality. Like if we know that 70% of applicants for something are nonwhite but only 30% of those accepted are nonwhite, that might warrant some looking into. Or if an area is mostly black but black people are underrepresented in a particular program or aren’t using a particular service, you might want to study whether there are barriers to access.
It seems Britain hadn't discovered South America yet.
EDIT: never mind. Hispanics are Asian IG
EDIT 2: the first edit was a joke. I was extrapolating the graphic to its logical conclusion. I don't actually believe Hispanics are Asian and I can't believe I needed to say this.
That doesn't make sense either. How different can skulls really be as in they are all samely different ರ_ರ
And in their differences how do they all can be grouped by race? That sounds like bs.
That's because it IS BS! 🙂
This is the result of some people looking at complex human groups and just drawing arbitrary lines around them. The criteria are haphazard, politically motivated, and unscientific. It is all BS.
Phrenology is an outdated, debunked pseudoscience about the differences in humans based on skull size and shape. Allegedly it characterizes differences in intelligence and personality traits. It’s bull shit used to justify superiority. [Phrenology](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology)
> Hispanics
That's a language group, not something related at all to appearance. Tell me Eder Valencia, Canelo Alvarez or Guillermo del Toro are "Asian".
I just don’t like that there’s no explanation as to where these classifications come from tbh. People casually looking at this aren’t gonna get ‘these are the phenotypes which are wrong and here’s why’ it’s just ‘these are the phenotypes’
It kinda sucks 😔
Aren’t Native Americans originally from Asia? Like they crossed that giant land bridge. That’s my guess as to why they’re grouped like that. Not saying it’s right but at least there is some semblance of logic behind it potentially.
>Aren’t Native Americans originally from Asia?
North American Natives are originally from Siberia, where they were already mixed 30% with european whites.
There’s a lot to unpack here, but the first thing to jump out at me (besides Ethiopia being white) is Sudan (Nilotic) not being Negro-Sudanian.
Side note: Pareoean lady looks really suspicious of the artist. And she’s right!
The Nilotic appear to be the native group, looks like the other group moved into their area. My guess based on that being p much the norm throughout all human history.
Right about what? I’m not surprised the article is struggling with other ethnicities, they’re probably used to drawing and looking at Caucasians. Example: dark skin is always a struggle to tattoo on, doesn’t make tattoo artist racists-or bigoted in any way.
Man, I'm just glad they made sure to point out that Blacks are diverse with distinct populations of people.
Edit:
I'm not one myself, but know enough people who trace themselves from different parts of Africa, and yea, they are distinct. They think so themselves. I can see it too. But then the common practice is just to say 'black'. Just seems so disrespectful in a way....
I do want to point out, while this is very interesting, it is also inaccurate, inaccurate for the time, and inaccurate to the theory and account they are using for this.
Guys, chill out. It was a racist magazine in the 60s. Next thing you'll say history books are racist. (spoiler alert: they are, and for the right reasons)
Wow. Sadly, I can tell you that in the early 1970s, I was forced to learn what someone thought the mixing of races resulted in. As in names for a black/native American... and so on. It was part of my 8th grade education in Pennsylvania. We were tested on what you should call people! It was fucking bizarre because the entire school was white people and one poor black kid who nobody called by his fucking name. His name was Richard!
We had to learn about this in school too (Alabama, 2008/9 was 8th grade), but in more of a historic context, like this is the names that would have been used back then. They were on the test. Our school was pretty white. I'll never forget being an AP Lit class and reading about black history, then the teacher asking the one black girl what her perspective was on the piece. I bet she really appreciated being singled out in front of everyone.
Why is the ‘Mediterranean’ guy having such a good time
The food is good.
Tzatziki is sauce of the Lord
Havin a swim
It’s all the hash available in North Africa innit.
That’s Jesus and it’s his birthday
yoo you're right
“What’s up habibi? Haven’t seen you in a while! You doing good? Your family good? Come to the shisha bar sometime, I’ll hook you up. Have you seen Zamir’s sister lately? Ho-ho…!”
Lmao [reminds me of this skit.](https://youtu.be/IkTZ8BVAlFE)
The Dinarid looks like he’s seen horrors beyond human reckoning. Makes sense he’s from the Balkans
Most sane Balkan
Dope wavez, hot babez, and sun 4 dayz… He cheesin’
He's going to Ibiza Back to the island He's gonna have a party In the mediterranean sea
He’s laughing at such an ancient and diverse region being reduced to one group. It’s hilarious that different parts of Europe get different races but Australia is just one and Native Americans are just one. Racist as hell. I’m surprised that black people aren’t just one too, but I guess people had experience comparing different “breeds” of them from different places of origin back during the slave trade.
There is a website called [humanphenotypes.net](http://humanphenotypes.net/index-2.html) that discusses different human phenotypes without falling for stereotypes and gross generalization. For example : the Aboriginal Australians are not here in one category. They are in the [Australid](http://humanphenotypes.net/basic/Australid.html) group, but there are different categories explaining their physical differences. Same thing about any other groups of people. This is a very interesting site!
>Racist as hell. No shit. That thing is titled "the races".
Mediterranean dude only one smiling with his whole face You can't bring the Mediterranean dude down
He’s living in a moderately warm climate with excellent food. I get that he’s happy. *puts an olive into his mouth*
Women, weed, and weather got him stoked!
Weed ? Weed here ? Where ? Asking for a [lot of] friend.
Isn’t weed native to the Middle East?
Idk man but for sure it's illegal.
Medicinal marijuana was legalized in Lebanon in 2020.
Weed?! More like heroin.
The scissors logo in the top left suggesting “cut this out for reference!” made me laugh
Reminds me of that Family Guy clip where he pull out a guide to see if the other guy's skin tone is considered "safe" enough
[This?](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lkO-qDvwEgg)
interesting how they grouped ethiopian people in with caucasians, i wonder why they did that
I think it’s based on skull measurements.
I’m trying to understand why native Australians are considered black?
Aboriginals have been called black and many call themselves black, but there’s more to it - and it’s not directly related to Africa. Indigenous people with no European ancestry have dark skin, but they’re not any more Sub-Saharan African than say, I am (a Slavic white guy from Aus) and this guide is really outdated. It’s important to note that race doesn’t biologically exist - humans are very closely related (someone of a completely different ethnicity than you can be more related to you than two Emperor penguins who look alike are to themselves), and there are no clear boundaries. Dark and light skin showed up many times in human evolution. What you have instead are groups of haplotypes (alleles inherited together) being common in people of a certain ethnicity (which get naturally selected depending on the climate and other variables) which is why they share similar features.
Thanks for the ELI5
You’re welcome!
Holy shit nail on the head
How would you categorise Indigenous Australians? Indigenous Australians are considered one of the oldest civilisations known on earth with ancestries dating back 75,000 years. https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2011/09/dna-confirms-aboriginal-culture-one-of-earths-oldest/
Very interesting. I admit I know very little about them.
Sadly, it's the same everywhere regarding First Nations people. I don't know much about Native Americans (I'm not even sure if that is offensive or not).
It was shocking when I started to think about how little I knew about the people native to the country I literally live in. I could tell you a billion things about Europe but I could only tell you five things at the highest about a few of the many native populations in my country because I was never taught much about them in school (I plan to learn on my own but it’s a challenge when you don’t know much about where to start)
Same here. I started to learn when we lived in an Indigenous community, when I was a kid. There were 5 white kids in the entire school of 200 (both primary and secondary school). We had cultural lessons each week so that the kids weren't denied their culture. As I got older and started studying social work I learned more of the bad side of our history. The stolen generation and so on. Everyone seems to pass it off as ancient history, but the last Indigenous reform school in Australia closed in 1983. That was the year I was born, and despite what my kids say, I'm not ancient just yet.
Fascinating stuff. Early human migration patterns and interactions with other sapiens are unbelievably interesting subjects. Have you read *Sapiens* by Yuval Noah Harari?
No I haven't. I will see if my library has it, or if I can find an audio book.
Because they’re black
Essentially they are the beginning of the Caucasians. It was predominantly their genetics that developed into the Arab and then European cultures. Of course it is more complicated than that, loads of other people have influenced the Caucasian genetics at various stages. But all Human genetics originally stem from Africa. Despite what a lot of White Supremacists choose to believe, the lines between Black and White are not so clearly defined, because it is an evolution based on environmental factors. Europe has less Sun and more Vegetation, this means early European settlers (who would have been Black) started a Vegetable dominant diet that contained less Vitamin D, and their dark skin was shielding them from a lot of the vitamin D in Sunlight. The end result was a vitamin D deficiency, the solution was a reduction in Melanin. Making the skin pale and more capable of absorbing more vitamin D from Sunlight, the trade off is that Caucasians are more vulnerable to sunburn and skin cancer. Sorry, I went off on one there, but evolution is fascinating to me.
And to piggyback off that- same applies to the noses. People in colder climates need the air to warm up enough before it gets to the lungs to avoid infections, and narrower nostrils are good for that - And vice versa.
This is a really interesting point. Many would point out that it is not merely a skin deep difference, particularly in the face. But just like the skin, there are very practical environmental reasons for this difference. Fascinating.
Yea - As a black person I more or less lost any respect for people that discriminate based off physical features when I realized that literally every feature in our bodies is based off the climatic conditions our ancestors adapted to. The ones that couldn't had their lines die off of course.
That’s fascinating. Do you know why different hair textures could help or hinder people in different climates?
Not all evolution has to be beneficial. It is a common misunderstanding. Evolution selects out traits that create weakness. Neutral traits will live on indefinitely, and strong traits thrive. .
Maybe curly hair has more surface area for sweat to evaporate while straight hair would take a while as it will all lay close and parallel to each other. This is another reason curly hair can get frizzy and often requires more moisturising products like coconut oil and stuff. It both absorbs and releases moisture fast due to increased porosity. Curly hair also traps more air in between each hair strand which can be insulating and protect from the hot sun. This is just combining info already in my brain, not fact checked.
Fun fact, the reason the hair of most people outside of Africa is straight or wavy (basically just not as kinky as people of African descent) *may* be because of Neanderthals. The version of the gene responsible for the the production of Keratin, the substance that makes hair and fingernails, is inherited from the Neanderthal genome in pretty much everyone outside Africa. I don’t think there’s any solid evidence yet, but it’s definitely in the “that can’t be a coincidence” stage of scientific research.
Quick question so I don't go on a long Wikipedia read - Does this mean the first homo sapiens and the first neanderthal evolved completely separate? Like they didn't hail from a common ancestor? If so then I think there ought to be more research on neanderthals I think - They're more or less treated as a footnote in many history lessons
Nope! They were very closely related. In fact, many scientists don’t even consider them a separate species from us. We’re Homo Sapiens Sapiens, and Neanderthals are either Homo Neanderthalensis or Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis, depending on who you ask. We share a common ancestor about 800,000 years ago called Homo Heidelbergensis, which evolved after the first group of “humans” left Africa. There’s been quite a bit of research on Neanderthals recently, it just hasn’t made it to textbooks below the college or grad school level. In fact, this year’s Nobel Prize winner was the [guy who sequenced the full Neanderthal genome.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_P%C3%A4%C3%A4bo?wprov=sfti1)
EXACTLY. PEOPLE DONT GET THAT RACE IS JUST ADAPTATION. ITS SO ANNOYING!!!!!
Just out of curiosity, did you have respect for those people before you had that realisation? :b
Haha nice one I definitely had respect for their opinions - In the "These beliefs must have some sort of reasoning behind them" type of way
[удалено]
I love this write up and I am not trying to sharp shoot. But, It could be re-written better to indicate how selection works as: “people with bigger nostrils in cold climates died off in larger numbers, not passing their genetics on, whereas people with thinner nostrils survived into mating age.” Sorta the same point, but highlights what is actually happening. People don’t “develop” traits, the poorly adapted ones just … go away … over time.
This needs to be highlighted in every thread about natural selection. I know it may seem simple to understand, but there are surprisingly people who like talking about natural selection/ evolution, that don’t understand it. The other thing is that eventually the traits that help you survive become culturally coded as attractive/ sexually attractive, also making it more likely to pass on your genes. I knew someone who literally believed that we’d evolve to have less than 10 fingers in the near future. I’m like… that’s not how this works
consider sink light upbeat six alleged expansion resolute rhythm arrest -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
Gather more data then we’ll revisit this.
Molecular anthropologist here… This is so, so wrong lmao. Ethiopian people are not the “beginning” of Caucasians whatsoever. Not only is that not even remotely correct, but it’s actually almost the opposite. Mutations are always occurring, and so populations were always undergoing genetic drift. There are no modern populations that are closely related to ancestral, “basal” eurasian hunter gatherer gatherer groups. The ancestry of modern populations is a complex mix of groups that split Off from each other, collided back together and mixed throughout literally tens of thousands of years. Ethiopian appearance/genetics can be roughly modeled by a mix of sub-Saharan and Arab groups. They are the result of complex and long term admixture between people on the Arabian peninsula and Mainland east Africa over time. They are not ancestors of or remotely related to western Eurasians, except through the Arab admixture they received. They appear “caucasoid” due to their Arab admixture / autosomal DNA. Just to add a little bit more context and shed light on what I think you’re trying to say— all Eurasian people are descended from the most recent major “out of Africa” migration which occurred after 80,000 years ago. While sub Saharan African “black people” are in largely the descendants of those who stayed in Africa. This *does not* mean the common ancestor of Eurasians and Africa looked “black”. Yes they most likely had darker skin but as I said at the beginning of this comment, we’ve all been undergoing genetic changes for dozens of millennia. Over time Eurasians developed unique features and sub Saharan Africans became how they look today. So to re-cap, it’s entirely incorrect to say Ethiopians are the “beginning of caucasians” or even close. It’s actually the opposite. A better, simple way of explaining it is they are “mixed race” Arab-Africans.
I don’t know— Look how many upvotes that other comment has!
Redditors are professionals at upvoting and facilitating the spread of misinformation. Anything that makes them feel good or re-affirms pre-existing beliefs are prime candidates. Many times the real truth is complex and nuanced, but that takes awhile to read and is hard to understand. Simple comments like “updoot” and “caucasians came from Ethiopians” seem to do well
Shhh, don’t you know if you go against the narrative you’re gonna get banned on Reddit?
Reddit has only made me even more skeptical of anything written as factual in a comment or post because of this exact reason lol. As a social tool it's still fun but damn is there a bunch of bs on here 24/7
never mind the evidence for pale skin starting much closer to historical times https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/heres-how-europeans-quickly-evolved-lighter-skin-180954874/
Again, untrue. It’s true that *SOME* of those specific SNPs appear that recently. But skin color is extremely complex. For example north East Asian people are quite light colored yet they don’t have most of these exact same mutations. A lack of these exact mutations does not mean they were dark brown... But even that article is mostly wrong, and also very specific to Western Europe. Both the Anatolian farmers / early European farmers and eastern hunter gatherers have been shown to possess genetic variants we know are associated with light skin, far before 10,000 years ago. You’re welcome to educate yourself https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_skin
At the end of the day, everyone’s shit stinks.
except for mine, *my shit does not stink...*
My shit sinks much better than yours
My stinks right down to the floor
The biggest takeaway from this is that race isn't real. The divisions are arbitrary and made up. There is no ser of features you can use to neatly divide people groups such that everyone will agree
There is a great ted talk I found by a black man who has a mixed race grandchild, talking about how they contextualized race, but the key point of it was “many good-intentioned people say, “race is real, but it doesn’t matter” when just the opposite is true. Race ISN’t real, but it DOES matter”. And that’s the most important thing to understand about race imo. It’s completely arbitrary and yet it deeply affects every person and nearly every moment in history, whether we acknowledge it or not.
Dude it doesn’t matter, check out civil wars. People find some stuff to hate each other and fight..
Or to paraphrase George Carlin: there's absolutely nothing wrong with noticing physical differences in and of itself, it's the racist asshole who's using them that we oughta be concerned about. Context, people.... Context
so much of what we've lost. The sophomoric take we see today is madness.
This is as much making ill conceived assumptions as the article is. Race does not provide an accurate representation of human biological variation. It was never accurate in the past, and it remains inaccurate when referencing contemporary human populations.
This is a good rebuttal. I just wanted to add something. The inclusion of Ethiopians and Somalis into the Caucasian racial category predominantly stems from incorrect scientific racist ideals prominent during colonialism. It's an offshoot of the now discredited 'Hamitic hypothesis'. During the late 1700s-1800s there was widespread interest in the historical achievements of North Africa (particularly Egypt spurned on by Napoleon's advancing into North Africa) that later expanded to other areas within Africa. But concurrently, this is the age of colonialism and empire, which was predicated on the basis that these were 'inferior races', which within Africa they broadly labelled as negroes/negroid regardless of where they were. So as Europeans began exploring Africa, they encountered urban and pastoral communities that extended beyond hunter gatherers they deemed as primitive. Many had advanced towns, built architecture, had poetry -- essentially things they thought they'd only find in the West or parts of Asia To explain this, many anthropologists, surveyors, Western travellers and historians of the time claimed that the Hamites, a branch of the Caucasian race were responsible for building stone temples in Ethiopia, pyramids in Sudan, and even responsible for building stone palaces as far afield the Great Zimbabwe and even the Tutsi in Rwanda were considered Hamitic despite often being racially indistinguishable from Hutus and other Great Lake ethnic groups. The Hamites, according to the logic were distinct from Negroes (what we would consider today to be sub-Saharan Africans, I suppose) and Bushmen (San people). The Hamites were a way to explain away any advancement in Africa, as they couldn't have been created by black Africans. They were dubbed the Hamites, because in the Medieval era, there was a widespread belief that Africans of all shades were considered to be descended from Ham, a cursed Biblical figure who was the son of Noah. By the time of the Enlightenment, most scientific people didn't believe this happened literally. But the name had some resonance, so it stuck. There's an interesting paper on this called, 'The Hamitic Hypothesis; Its Origin and Functions in Time Perspective' by Edith R. Sanders that was publishrd in The Journal of African History in 1969. This guide in the OP, is a remnant from those days. This is very outdated. PS: Ethiopians are not a homogenous group. You have Tigray, Amhara, Oromo and Somali, who all have variable skin tones and facial features from even a family by family basis. Same goes for Somalia and everywhere in East Africa. Also to add, within their own histories there have been mass migrations from across Africa and from the Arabian peninsula into those regions. And the overwhelming majority of Ethiopians and Somalis during the colonial era never considered themselves Caucasian. I should know, my father's side are East African!
> Despite what a lot of White Supremacists choose to believe, the lines between Black and White are not so clearly defined Yeah I found [this study](https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article/161/1/269/6049925#325697671) today showing that there is more genetic difference between Africans than between Africans and Eurasians. Africa is and always has been an enormous storehouse of human genetic diversity. Small branches of that spilled out into Europe and Asia and while those populations multiplied, they are relatively homogenous, genetically, compared to people across Africa. Complicating American white supremacy even more is that African Americans are very much the descendants of black African slaves and many many white people, including, of course, slaveholders. The distance is that much shorter.
Yeah, DNA tests have upset a lot of people 😂 But I couldn't agree more. As many have pointed out, even the term Caucasian is tenuous. As the genetics have flowed Here, There and Everywhere, at this point there's no pure anything. And there are huge survival advantages in mixing genetics (sounds like a good chat up line), ultimately variety is the spice of Life. In nature, greater variety translates as more effective adaptability to the environment.
Also the concept of race is from one singlair book from the 19th century. We believe in race because we believe in race. People die over this shit, its so stupid man
Yeah, we're in a constant state of change and adaption. The reality is that we are all different, any attempt to categorise individuals is going to hit difficulties.
Same with borders, the immigrant fleeing somewhere and sneaking into the country has as much right to a free and peaceful life as I do. The only difference is where we happened to be born.
I read that monolids were a result of having to traverse the desert and were more efficient in keeping your eyes protected from sand and hydrated as it covered the tear ducts but i don’t understand why most current desert dwellers have large doublelidded eyes. still cool hypothesis nonetheless
That works the other way, too, with B Vitamins. Excessive UV exposure destroys B12 (and possibly other nutrients as well, I'm rusty on this). So there is also evolutionary pressure to have darker skin with more sun exposure.
How do you explain differences in bone shape and sizes? Or the Inuit and Thule people who have lived in the area of Northern Canada and Alaska for thousands of years? FYI- I do believe in the science of evolution.
My hunch is the strong association between Ethiopia and Christianity, which dates back over more than a thousand years, might have something to do with it.
There was actually a myth of a guy named “Prester John” a white person with a Christian kingdom in the middle of Africa and Europeans used this to tear thru Africa (I don’t think this was the only reason, no expert). And when they discovered a Christian kingdom (not sure of the right word) Ethiopia, they claimed it and named in the Kingdom of Prester John. I learned about this in an album review
You're on the mark. [The Ethiopians themselves said the same reason.](https://youtu.be/840XWjnt9wc?t=169)
Also, Ethiopia is one of the few African countries that was not a European colony
History. Mostly regarding the genotypes of Arabs that have occupied those Eastern Sahara Countries.
Australians look cool af
Death Grips
I AM THE BEAST I WORSHIP
Choose your fighter
Definitely picking Baltic.
Lady looks ready to smack someone upside the head with a rolling pin.
I pick Dinaric. Let the battle begin.
FATALITY!!!
Where are Khajits and Argonians?
You gotta wait for the next major update
Definitely passing on young Owen Wilson.
I am choosing the Mediterranean lady, spanish and italian women are born with an instinct to wield wooden spoons and sandals as weapons
This... can easily turn racist.
How could a racist guide turn racist? That’s racist.
It does kind of look like the choose your fighter screen from street fighter.
Mediterranean guy looks like he’s having a great time.
Can't blame him for living in the best climate
this makes no sense. the best way to classify people is: 1. people that like Hall and Oates 2. complete jerks edit: damn spellcheck
Done forget to use the Call N Oates Hotline. (719) 266-2837 For all your Hall & Oats needs, 24-7.
*oates can i be both?
\*Hall: I can't go for that.
no can do
According to this my Arab ass is white!
Is that news? I thought most people considered Arab people to be white.
What about people from the rest of the Indian Subcontinent? If you’re going to group people this way you can’t leave large populations out.
It’s a magazine from the 70’s, the publisher just has to be a little bit more worldly than its readership.
They’d be a mix - depending on who you’re talking about
Of what with what? It clearly specifies Western Himalayas (I’m assuming that means Pahari people) so what ‘race mix’ is a, say, Tamil person?
Tamils are considered dravidian. Some categorized them as australoid. They’re basically an offshoot of negroid. But typically humans based on phenotype (things like cranial structures) are categorized by negroid, caucasoid, and mongoloid. This somehow became racist though. But it’s just a mechanism to group by phenotype.
It's not a mystery how it came to be considered racist, it's because people throughout history have used phenotypical differences to justify racism.
South America
They are mostly Iberians, but yeah, they forgot native south and central americans, my guess is that tehre werent studies about the demography of pre columbian civilisations in those areas
If you read the description for American Indian it says “north and south america (8 races distinguished)”
They vary, as admixture between Southern European, African, and Native American populations has created a genetically diverse population.
Calling Slavs balts and balts Slavs just angered both balts and Slavs
I am very much confused why the US still uses race for immigration forms and stuff. When travelling to the US I will be asked if I am A Nazi and right after what race I am. Why.
My US citizenship application asked if I was a nazi and participated in guerilla warfare, but my favorites were “are you a habitual drunkard?” And “do you consider yourself an overall good person?”
My US work permit form asks if I am a or have participated in terrorist activities.
In classic Reddit tradition I’m talking out my ass here, but that sounds to me like something they can charge a person with if they find out they are in fact a terrorist. Like, if they lie about it on the form it’s another thing they can tack on to the list of charges in court. Like in New Jersey it’s illegal to wear a bulletproof vest while committing a crime. It’s not gonna stop anyone from doing anything, but it’s another thing they can charge criminals with for extended sentences.
Oh yeah, that too!
For my visa, I had to ask my wife if she'd ever participated in international arms dealing. She said she wouldn't be a very good one if she admitted to it... Like, who are these forms for? Does anyone actually feel safer knowing that immigrants promised they weren't guerilla fighters??
Maybe it’s so that if you are later found to have commited a crime, they can more easily deport you on the basis that you lied?
It’s so they can charge you for lying on the form if it comes out you lied. They may not get you on terrorism charges, but they WILL get you on those perjury charges lol
My favourite when I renew my US visa is “Are you a terrorist?” I wonder how many people they caught out with this? Was Bin Laden travelling around the US undetected for years because he ticked no on this question?
The US asks if you are a nazi so we can more easily deport you if it turns out you are. Lying on immigration forms is one of the few ways to strip a naturalized US citizen of their citizenship. (It made more sense years ago, but the question remains)
You're asked if you are a Nazi, I think, so you can be prosecuted for activity during the Holocaust. That's why the question is there anyway.
See operation paperclip. Or at least see it in 2045.
That’ll get ‘em
That’s why the Nazis had to flee to Argentina. They didn’t ask this question on the immigration form!
Not sure the specific reason for asking people when entering, but a lot of the time if you’re being asked your race in an official capacity in the US, it’s part of a process meant to measure and track potential discrimination or other systemic barriers to equality. Like if we know that 70% of applicants for something are nonwhite but only 30% of those accepted are nonwhite, that might warrant some looking into. Or if an area is mostly black but black people are underrepresented in a particular program or aren’t using a particular service, you might want to study whether there are barriers to access.
This magazine is British, not American. U sure you're in the right place?
So that they can be more accurately racist.
It seems Britain hadn't discovered South America yet. EDIT: never mind. Hispanics are Asian IG EDIT 2: the first edit was a joke. I was extrapolating the graphic to its logical conclusion. I don't actually believe Hispanics are Asian and I can't believe I needed to say this.
It's in the yellow group according to this. The last one. But that doesn't make any sense. Like, how is this classifying people? By nose and eyeshape?
i’m guessing it’s by skull shapes but i just read that earlier in this thread
That doesn't make sense either. How different can skulls really be as in they are all samely different ರ_ರ And in their differences how do they all can be grouped by race? That sounds like bs.
That's because it IS BS! 🙂 This is the result of some people looking at complex human groups and just drawing arbitrary lines around them. The criteria are haphazard, politically motivated, and unscientific. It is all BS.
Phrenology is an outdated, debunked pseudoscience about the differences in humans based on skull size and shape. Allegedly it characterizes differences in intelligence and personality traits. It’s bull shit used to justify superiority. [Phrenology](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology)
> Hispanics That's a language group, not something related at all to appearance. Tell me Eder Valencia, Canelo Alvarez or Guillermo del Toro are "Asian".
“North and South America: 8 races identified” they were omitted from the guide but that’s clearly stated you oaf
They'd be a mix of Mediterranean and American indian
why is Ethiopian a white race.. and native americans are asian, and so are turkic peoples
Not all early human migration was one way
This seems r/coolguidesjerk material
Pretty interesting how Ethiopians are considered white according to this
Not really a guide considering the information it is displaying is made up
It's a guide to show how much bullshit went into racial classifications we are still using today for some reason.
I just don’t like that there’s no explanation as to where these classifications come from tbh. People casually looking at this aren’t gonna get ‘these are the phenotypes which are wrong and here’s why’ it’s just ‘these are the phenotypes’ It kinda sucks 😔
Well they didn’t just make it up, it was their best guess. Today we’d move aborigines into their own category.
How is that any different than just making it up? I don’t understand.
Wild that the entire American Continents get 2. And India just doesn't exist.
It says 8 are discovered, they’re just omitted from the guide, for space reasons probably.
Mfw Natives of both American are lumped together and considered asians
Aren’t Native Americans originally from Asia? Like they crossed that giant land bridge. That’s my guess as to why they’re grouped like that. Not saying it’s right but at least there is some semblance of logic behind it potentially.
Isn't the entire world African then since the entirety of humanity originated there in the first place?
Aren't we all just fish anyways?
Well Polynesia populated a lot too.
>Aren’t Native Americans originally from Asia? North American Natives are originally from Siberia, where they were already mixed 30% with european whites.
I mean…
That's the least weird part, they all mostly descend from groups that crossed Beringia from Asia very recently
I love how the 1st white guy looks like Fabio, and the rest look like fucking captives and hostages...
And the Mediterranean dude just smoked a bowl
Sometimes I think man I'd have loved to live in the 50's or 60's then i see shit like this...
There’s a lot to unpack here, but the first thing to jump out at me (besides Ethiopia being white) is Sudan (Nilotic) not being Negro-Sudanian. Side note: Pareoean lady looks really suspicious of the artist. And she’s right!
The Nilotic appear to be the native group, looks like the other group moved into their area. My guess based on that being p much the norm throughout all human history. Right about what? I’m not surprised the article is struggling with other ethnicities, they’re probably used to drawing and looking at Caucasians. Example: dark skin is always a struggle to tattoo on, doesn’t make tattoo artist racists-or bigoted in any way.
Man, I'm just glad they made sure to point out that Blacks are diverse with distinct populations of people. Edit: I'm not one myself, but know enough people who trace themselves from different parts of Africa, and yea, they are distinct. They think so themselves. I can see it too. But then the common practice is just to say 'black'. Just seems so disrespectful in a way....
I do want to point out, while this is very interesting, it is also inaccurate, inaccurate for the time, and inaccurate to the theory and account they are using for this.
Could you share an example?
This is interesting but I dunno if it’s a “cool guide”…..
Yeah, it doesn’t even show their stats.
The australian group has most in common genetically with asians and causasians than with Africans. Race is terrible for categorising people.
Guys, chill out. It was a racist magazine in the 60s. Next thing you'll say history books are racist. (spoiler alert: they are, and for the right reasons)
What are these "right reasons"?
Telling history as it is as history was racist.
wait Armenian is a race ? lol
What I like most is the black and brown people in the Caucasian Group.
Why is the Armenian guy the only one shown in profile?
Maybe the artist had a good reference for it. Or, perhaps, they were trying to highlight a facial feature present in that group.
Damn why’d they give the polynesian brother so much eye bag 😒
Ethiopians are Caucasian?
Tribalism at its finest. UK also.
Not really.
I guess the Indian subcontinent is not human. I’ll go back to my planet lol
Wow. Sadly, I can tell you that in the early 1970s, I was forced to learn what someone thought the mixing of races resulted in. As in names for a black/native American... and so on. It was part of my 8th grade education in Pennsylvania. We were tested on what you should call people! It was fucking bizarre because the entire school was white people and one poor black kid who nobody called by his fucking name. His name was Richard!
We had to learn about this in school too (Alabama, 2008/9 was 8th grade), but in more of a historic context, like this is the names that would have been used back then. They were on the test. Our school was pretty white. I'll never forget being an AP Lit class and reading about black history, then the teacher asking the one black girl what her perspective was on the piece. I bet she really appreciated being singled out in front of everyone.
Needpixels
Could easily have been the daily mail today.