|
|
Post by Subuatai on Dec 10, 2008 3:59:15 GMT -5
... How will we look like? Now I've encountered quite a few nationalists who condemn racial mixing as they are entirely convinced that doing so will wipe out ethnic identity and the beauty of the diverse human race. However, coming from central-Asia where everyone can look asian black, white, brown, mixed, etc watever blah blah blah... and still be considered the same race of people - I can't help but oppose this. In central Asia you can have two parents with for example, dark hair, and wham the kid is born a red-head. You can have 5 kids with a light-skin man and dark-skinned woman and wham, 5 kids can be lighter, darker, or simply tanned, and even sometimes WTH blondes. Genetics is random - but it's never lost! In my opinion of course, ne ways to prove my point further: These are purebloods: Central Asian Altaics:  Australoids:  Not albinos, albinos look like this:  So what you think? EDIT: Grrr stupid picture doesn't work |
|
|
|
Post by danny777 on Dec 10, 2008 5:20:20 GMT -5
I think I've just brought my breakfast back up.  |
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Dec 10, 2008 5:49:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jefe on Dec 10, 2008 7:49:49 GMT -5
The world is already very mixed. A new ethnic group is created when a group of people become isolated from others and interbreed with each other for generations.
In fact, my understanding is a prevailing theory is that Central Asians predated either Europeans or East Asians, but they split up from each other into separate tribes and then become genetically isolated for many thousands years. Genetic bottlenecks and genetic drift eventually created different races.
Mixing different groups simply forms new groups. New ethnic groups are continuously being created all the time, eg,
MEXICANS -- Mix Native American and Spanish with a dash other Europeans and Africans, teach them Spanish with Native American influences, let them share a culture that has developed and evolved over 500 years and TA-DA.
AFRICAN-AMERICANS -- Mix several different West African tribes with considerable European groups and a sprinkling of Native American tribes and a dash of even Chinese / Filipino -- have them share a continuous history that has been brought down from the slavery and sharecropping and segregation periods -- There are people who also elect to join this ethnic group even though they are not at all descendant from it. The most obvious case is our new President-elect who is not directly descendent from either any West african or mulatto slave or white slaveowner, but elected to join this group.
"AMERICAN" -- whites who have no ethnic affiliation with any group from Europe. They might have a considerable amount of English / Scottish / Scotch-Irish, but also other European, African and Native American mixed in.
FILIPINOs -- about 2/3 of the ancestry is from the Malay migrations, but the rest is very complex, with Negrito pygmies, pre-Malay hill tribes from Indonesia, plus Arab, Indian, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese and Black/White American.
THAIs -- Not just of ethnic Thai descent, but also of the minority tribes in the country and a considerable admixture of Chinese and Indian, and a smaller contribution of European.
Neo-Hawaiian: Sure, there are a few persons whose ancestry is over 7/8 native Hawaiian, but the modern day "Hawaiian" (who identifies as Hawaiian and as part Hawaiian descent) is a mixture of Native Hawaiian, other Polynesian, other Pacific Islander (eg, Micronesians), Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Irish, English, Portuguese, etc. etc. A Hawaiian is mostly Portuguese / Chinese could not differ more than a Macanese who is also mostly Portuguese / Chinese.
|
|
|
|
Post by halfbreed on Dec 10, 2008 8:17:56 GMT -5
Throw up your breakfast? I don't even see anything wrong with them.  Personally, I'd never want a world of just mixed people. |
|
|
|
Post by danny777 on Dec 10, 2008 8:21:01 GMT -5
Throw up your breakfast? I don't even see anything wrong with them. Personally, I'd never want a world of just mixed people. Couple of weird-looking chaps. |
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Dec 10, 2008 8:27:59 GMT -5
I'm glad I've studied anthropology in this regard  Actually central-Asians, the first Altaics were originally purely born with Mongoloid skull structure. But the northern Altaics already had some Caucasoid features such as lighter-hair and light-eyes - similar to the native Ainus of Japan, yet Altaics still had Mongoloid skull structure and genetics. Altaics can be divided in two groups, Turk and Mongol. The Turks had always moved westward, and there were also some Indo-Aryans in the area, which contributed to many of the looks we see today. The Oghuz Turks who migrated to Anatolia are the most mixed, their features resemble mostly Greek and Indo-Aryan, rather then Central-Asian such as Kazakhs, Kyrgyz or Uzbeks. Mongols are also a very diverse people. Those who stayed in the Yuan Dynasty preserved Mongolic looks. Yet those who stayed in the western regions became mostly Turkified or at least genetically different. In Russia, my grandmother is Mongolo-Tatar, but with complete Slavic and Indo-European features. In Afghanistan, you also have Hazara Mongols, who are actually more 'pure' in terms of the Mongolic look. In Kalmykia however, Kalmyks migrated not as conquerors, but as immigrants - with both men and women, instead of relying on foreign women to populate the generations. Therefore, Kalmyks have a more Mongolic look, but also share the possibility of having pureblood lighter features from the north Altai in ancient times. In the end those who are born and educated in our culture, do not look to our physical appearance as a gauge of the individual. We are all Turanians, but we also enjoy the diversity of both cultures and looks of our people. It is also a fact that the steppe confederations were never founded by ideals of race - but by spirit itself. Yes, Mexicans, African-Americans, Native-Americans, Filipinos, Hawaiians, Thais are a very mixed people. There's a saying once that "Everyone is a mix of everything these days", and that can also be true. However nationalist groups are seeing racial mixing as a threat. I too am being condemned sometimes for dating a Nordic/Chinese woman. Though our traditional culture dictates that we must look past the skin of a person to gauge the worth of the individual, nationalism can get out of hand. The Altaic people have many political enemies, I'm already born of both Mongol and Slavic blood, even though my grandmother identifies herself as Tatary. Her ancestors fought for Tatar Cossacks as mercenaries of the Czars against the nations of the steppes. Which in the Turanid sense: Betrayal. The Swedish have been responsible for much genocide against the Finnish people who are of the Uralic race - who Altaics also share many relations and close bonds with. The Chinese are still occupying Uyghurstan, Dzungaria, Tsahar Mongolia, and Tibet - territories they inherited from the Manchus - Tungus nomads also related to Mongols. and as a result this is causing quite a lot of tension. Heh sorry, but I have no idea why I wrote this. Just wish all this will stop but it probably never will until enough people have suffered and died. --- Anyways my point in this topic is to demonstrate how even though with mixes, racial features can never be lost. The world is very diverse, and in theory (which is prone to the debate which I'm provoking) - You can mix up the world, yet you will still have stereotypical "Black" looking people "White" looking people, "Asian" looking people, "Brown" looking people etc. Even if we are all mixed. |
|
|
|
Post by alphamikefoxtrot on Dec 11, 2008 14:09:58 GMT -5
^  |
|
|
|
Post by jefe on Dec 12, 2008 6:53:33 GMT -5
Anyways my point in this topic is to demonstrate how even though with mixes, racial features can never be lost. The world is very diverse, and in theory (which is prone to the debate which I'm provoking) - You can mix up the world, yet you will still have stereotypical "Black" looking people "White" looking people, "Asian" looking people, "Brown" looking people etc. Even if we are all mixed. Technically yes, but due to migration, genetic drift and genetic bottlenecks, as well as assimilation, the genes may not occur in sufficient combination to become noticeable, or alternatively, genes that are rare in combination could suddenly become very common in a certain population. If we are indeed all out of Africa, then why did all the people who migrated out of Africa started to look more and more different from each other? The genes are likely still there in Africa, but not in the combinations found in high numbers elsewhere. Genes for blond hair, freckles, curly body hair, blue eyes are undoubtedly all across China, but rarely occur in sufficient combination for it to be very visible. Cultural and social assimilation in Mexico has all but eliminated the African-Mexican segment of the population, which I understand to be about 6% of the Mexican population (about 1/2 that of the USA). Genetic drift can occur due to social and economic reasons as well. In Mexico, wealthier or smarter Mexican men have a very large tendency to select lighter partners, but poorer or less skilled Mexicans tend to choose darker partners. Wealthier or well-educated men tend to have wealthier or better educated sons, and vice versa, so that after several generations, skin color and wealth could be highly correlated in a population, even though the Native American, European and African ancestries are spread across a population which considers itself to be ethnically Mexican. Question: Will the Asian-American population in the USA (and perhaps other non-Asian countries with sizeable Asian populations) evolve into a separate groups from whites (like African-Americans) or assimilate into the general population (like African-Mexicans)? Or will an intermediate population emerge? I think the 2nd is most likely as for the 1st option, you need either a very strong legal or social barrier between the 2 groups that would prevent many Asians from mating with non-Asians, and similar to African-Americans during segregation, Eurasians would have to be barred from mating with whites. There were many persons between mulatto and quadroon during the Civil War (1860s), but they virtually completely disappeared by the end of segregation (1960s). They either had to identify as colored, or, if light enough, pass as white. By 1970, 2 modes of European / African mixture surfaced, one at around 80% African, and another at around 10-12% African. The former were African-Americans, and the latter were whites with distant African forebears. With the relaxation of anti-miscegenation, and younger generation in the 25-50% African has started to emerge again. The 3rd option is not likely either unless the intermediate group has a unique social / cultural experience different from both their parent groups. Macanese in Macau were able to maintain a mixed identity even after 450 years of Portuguese colonization with their own mix of local culture. However, I am sure that it will die out within 100 years after the handover back to China because China forced them to CHOOSE -- either Chinese or foreigner, but not something "Macanese". Eurasians in HK used to have a separate social group before WWII. But with the humiliation of the British by the Japanese, and the western education of elite segments of the Chinese population, the social need for a Eurasian disappeared. Since WWII, most have either migrated overseas to a western country, or remained and assimilated more and more into the Chinese population. There are very few remaining vestiges left of the pre-WWII Eurasian families. |
|
|
|
Post by Paddy on Dec 12, 2008 14:28:52 GMT -5
Anyways my point in this topic is to demonstrate how even though with mixes, racial features can never be lost. The world is very diverse, and in theory (which is prone to the debate which I'm provoking) - You can mix up the world, yet you will still have stereotypical "Black" looking people "White" looking people, "Asian" looking people, "Brown" looking people etc. Even if we are all mixed. Although China is commonly regarded by most as a racially homogeneous country, it isn't. There are 56 ethnic minorities in China, which the incumbent government takes pains to make people aware of (eg. little known is that China has more Muslims than any other country). Most of these 56 minorities derive from migration between China 'proper' and the nomadic peoples to west and north. Before national borders existed, China maintained her geo-political boundaries with a vast bureaucracy that served to inculcate civilisation among the populace; that is, through propagating 'Chinese' customs and culture. As cultural fidelity was lost the further you went from the Imperial court (and the Emperor) the less 'Chinese' people were. Thus the border of the Empire was undefined. As 'civilisation' expanded, extraneous peoples were assimilated - many of those with features unlike what we would normally associate with Chinese people. The Emperor held what is known as the Mandate of Heaven, which states that he who takes the throne does so hold favour with Heaven and attains power on merit. Thus when the Mongols (Yuan Dynasty), and later the Manchus (Qing Dynasty) occupied the imperial court, it was deemed to be legitimate by Heaven (the Jurchen of the Jin Dynasty were also foreign invaders from the north). Thus by its very nature, and indeed constitution, China is a multi-ethnic country that explicitly does not (should not) discriminate on lines of race (but on lines of nationality). Aside: the notion of the Mandate of Haven remains true today, and it's believed that is why the CCP hold the reigned of power so tightly. For to be toppled is to have lost favour with Haven and to have relinquished the divine Mandate of Heaven. |
|
|
|
Post by haplotype on Dec 12, 2008 14:36:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Paddy on Dec 12, 2008 14:43:02 GMT -5
Hmm...yeah ok.
No wonder it's little known. I've been discredited!
|
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68 
|
Post by cm on Dec 12, 2008 22:32:27 GMT -5
I think I've just brought my breakfast back up. Why? Did you accidentally look into the mirror? |
|
|
|
Post by LaFace on Dec 13, 2008 11:45:37 GMT -5
Everyone will look, 'beige'!
I think if the entire world was of mixed race (in terms of more recent generations), then there would be less of the cons that come with being mixed, as well as less of the pros that come with being mixed.
|
|
Shock
Full Member
Posts: 261
|
Post by Shock on Dec 13, 2008 13:06:00 GMT -5
If the world was mixed? Uhm i think we will lose most of recessive genes.
|
|
