Tuesday, 24 February 2009
-
Basic and common knoweldge?
Humor me for a moment. What if you said "race doesn't exist," and someone replied:
"There's 3 races: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid (in alphabetical order).... that's in science books?"What if this person then failed to cite his sources, even upon demand, and claimed that this was "basic and common knowledge?"
Is it common knowledge that there are three races: "Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid"? (In what science books could I find this information?)
-
recommend
- recs 0
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Post a Comment
- Back to la_faerie_joyeuse's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in la_faerie_joyeuse's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (37)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasoid
Wikipedia has an entry. Apparently, it's an anthropology term.
I've never heard of that. That's new to me.
Only semi-off topic, i've been considering doing my own post on racism lately... but since it's been the latest Xanga trend, and i like to stay off the Xanga bandwagon, i'm not sure...
@Papillon_Mom - Avoiding doing something because others have done it before you, is just as bad as doing something in order to fit in.
If you want to write the post, do it.
However, anthropology lists 5 races. Still, the poster is a moron.
@la_faerie_joyeuse - Very true. Thanks for the splash of cold water.
I don't think it's common knowledge, but I learned those terms last semester in my high school sociology textbook.
@huginn @bosefius @decembriel - Sociology and Anthropology generally are not considered "science," at least in my neck of the woods.
@la_faerie_joyeuse - Well, technically they are science, but by no means common knowledge. Then again, for a long time phrenology was a science.
@bosefius - I'm pretty sure that, to be a science, something has to be testable, verifiable, and falsifiable. Most social "sciences" don't apply.
@la_faerie_joyeuse - Ok, I am seeing the disconnect in our conversation. I considered Archaeology part of Anthropology, however, from further reading, it turns out that there are two branches of Anthropology, a physical side (what I was refering to) and and cultural, which is more what you are refering to. Sorry for the confusion.
@la_faerie_joyeuse - I just meant that my sociology textbook made reference to the fact people used to be classified according to those terms. It's not that the sociology textbook was making a scientific claim about race.
Is it common knowledge that there are three races: "Caucasoid,
Mongoloid, and Negroid"? (In what science books could I find this
information?)
I would say not common knowledge, and based on 18th and 19th century work in Physical Anthropology, that is now considered controversial and offensive.
Can you tell us more about what prompted this question?
It is not common knowledge. They are anthropological terms, but they are not meant to describe "race" in current society. They refer to ideas about evolution and migration of human beings across the planet, historically speaking. Prehistorically, even.
No, I've taken my share of anthropology classes and I've never heard those terms being used.. I certainly wouldn't call it common knowledge, either
It does quite seem like a centuries-old over-generalization. I've never heard it. It makes sense on a 40,000-ft level, I guess, but I wouldn't toss it around in public. ;)
@valis10 - Another blogger on xanga said those things to me. I think he's wrong, but I thought I'd ask the general public to prove it.
@la_faerie_joyeuse - ok thanks. I have taken several Anthropology classes and I don't remember talking about those classifications. I am glad you asked the question though, it is interesting to read about racial classifications and what it means in todays world.
I really wonder if we are making progress on "racism" becasue I am pretty certain that most people have no clue what racism means.
actually I've seen those types of classifications- I found them in books buried in my HS library- they were circa 1930's to 1950's; it was pretty shocking for me as a 13 year old to find out I was under the classification Mongoloid, and I was somehow inferior- it made me want to prove the book wrong and so I made valedictorian. it was fun.
@TheUnbearableLightnessofPeeing - I'm pretty sure that book failed to mention that "mongloids" are now dominating "Caucasiods" in just about every relevant field.
Congrats on being valedictorian.
actually I heard that in sociology the other day, but I didnt hear them by those terms. It has to do with region and kind of a human evolution in adapting to our surroundings over a vast amount of time... It definately isnt common knowledge, but is a interesting theory.
try physical anthropology books :)
I believe it goes back to the era when eugenics was an accepted theory.
Psh. Everyone knows this...
Trust me, I know :p
actually that is in a well known science book called, "The Methodologist Academia" published in 1823.
It's like with breeds of dogs. We are all one race, but with much variety.
Despite what evolution sugests I believe we all equal, all human, all brothers and sisters.