A sincere Question about Race and Latinos?

Question

So, I am not an anthropologist or anything but I have been hearing that there is technically one real race "human". I know that, but anthropology people split humans into three types: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Africanoid. So if those are the three general races of humans. Then there must be sub-racial groups rights? So Mongoloid there would be, East Asian, South Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American. Caucasoid: White, Mediterranean, North African, Middle Eastern. But what sub-racial groups are there for Africans? Cuz I notice that caucasians and asians have different looking sub-race groups, and then a bunch of different ethnic groups within them. But what do Africans have besides their thousands of ethnic groups? Are east africans different that south african natives or west africans? With Latinos (which I know isn't a race), most are in fact Mestizo (Spanish/Portuguese and Amerindian) so technically they would be Mediterranean (Caucasoid) and Amerindian (Mongoloid)? Nice Answers.

Answer 1

'Congoid' people (like black Americans)- mostly Bantu people that expanded out from the Congo/Nigeria area about 5,000 years ago when they learned how to farm. Oddly enough, there's traceable Eurasian DNA from when the Berbers mixed with them, right down into central Africa. From the last Saharan wet phase, probably.

http://www.saintmarys.edu/~rjensen/congo...

'Khoisanoid/Capoid' (like the bushmen). These people are genetically pretty distinct from ,and look different from, Congoid Africans. They used to cover most of Africa from the central areas down, but the Bantu people mostly wiped them out, just leaving a few groups.

http://www.loe.org/images/051014/Bushman...

http://www.woodsmoke.uk.com/uimages/ben....

'Afrasian' people, like Ethiopians, Eritreans and Somalis. They are more closely related to Europeans and Arabs than West coast Africans, when multi gene analysis is used they cluster with Caucasians. This is partly because they were the parents of the founder group that were the first people to leave Africa, and later there was a big Semitic Caucasian back migration into Africa, making us even closer related.

http://static.flickr.com/19/121411571_e5...

http://mathilda37.files.wordpress.com/20...

You'll find plenty of anthropolgists who support race as a concept, BTW. Just not so many who''ll risk their grants by making a public statement to that end.

Latinos are like smoothies, a tasty mix of many things!

Answer 2

AFRICANOID?? where did you do your racist research? there is only 1 race where i come from and that is humanoid! we don't jusge by race colour creed or religion. most mature decent modern people don't. there is the odd jackass known as a racist but we tend to either ignore and shun them or kick the c**p outta them.

Answer 3

Dont listen to anyone who tells you race does not exist. When a human remains are found biological anthropologits must determine the s*x, age and race of the individual. Look around you, the fact is race does exist. Different genes spread through different populations makeing the differences you see today. There was however enough genetic exchange between these populations to keep everyone as the same species of Homo sapien. The fact is there is more genetic diversity within Africa than Africa and any other population. This is because humanity arrose in Africa.

Answer 4

It depends entirely on who is doing the classifying and what their opinion is. I once read a book where the author spoke matter-of-factly about the "Welsh race".

Besides which, all these classifications assume that you can successfully categorize people into "a race" even though they are of mixed heritage.

Answer 5

Actually the racial categories you mentioned are outdated. Since the mid-twentieth century anthropologists have only taken an interest in race in so far as it is a cultural construct which serves to delimit tribes, nations or ethnicities. The idea that differences in phenotype (facial features, pigmentation etc.) are indicative of more substantive differences on the genetic level (differences in intelligence, aptitude...) is now a largely discredited view held by an insignificant minority of biologists and social scientists.