Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    too many guns per person 10 guns for every citizen its mad.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Lmao Pablo ain't white
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    So, basically, Mexicans are included in the US "crimes by whites" statistics? Well that pretty much makes them f***ing useless then :rofl:
    • Offline

      20
      (Original post by It's****ingWOODY)
      So, basically, Mexicans are included in the US "crimes by whites" statistics? Well that pretty much makes them f***ing useless then :rofl:
      Why shouldn't they be? They aren't black or asian.
      Offline

      8
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Mathemagicien)
      Why shouldn't they be? They aren't black or asian.
      They're hispanic.
      Online

      14
      ReputationRep:
      They're all short.

      It's pretty unfair that us 6'2+ crew should have to answer for the crimes of the manlets.
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Mathemagicien)
      Why shouldn't they be? They aren't black or asian.
      They're Hispanic.
      • Offline

        20
        (Original post by It's****ingWOODY)
        They're Hispanic.
        They're descendants of the Spaniards who colonised it brutally centuries ago. They happen to have a lot of native American mixed in. Does that mean they aren't white? The one drop rule, I thought, was a relic of our colonial past. Even the Nazis weren't so strict.

        Guess how the Spaniards colonised it? Mucho gun violence.
        Offline

        15
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Mathemagicien)
        They're descendants of the Spaniards who colonised it brutally centuries ago. They happen to have a lot of native American mixed in. Does that mean they aren't white? The one drop rule, I thought, was a relic of our colonial past. Even the Nazis weren't so strict.

        Guess how the Spaniards colonised it? Mucho gun violence.
        Native Americans aren't white either so what exactly is your point?
        Offline

        12
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Mathemagicien)
        Why shouldn't they be? They aren't black or asian.
        Do you know more races exist than black or 'asian' (which isn't a race anyway)?
        • Offline

          20
          (Original post by Nebuchadnezzaṛ)
          Do you know more races exist than black or 'asian' (which isn't a race anyway)?
          Race is a social construct, I could define the races as white, asian (obviously I mean the noodle asians), arabs and blacks, and it would be about as accurate as the usual definitions.

          E.g. there is less variation between Europeans and Asians than there is within black Africans. In fact, black people are so genetically distinct and diverse that you could be justified in dividing humanity into two races: blacks and non-blacks.
          Offline

          12
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Mathemagicien)
          Race is a social construct, I could define the races as white, asian (obviously I mean the noodle asians), arabs and blacks, and it would be about as accurate as the usual definitions.

          E.g. there is less variation between Europeans and Asians than there is within black Africans. In fact, black people are so genetically distinct and diverse that you could be justified in dividing humanity into two races: blacks and non-blacks.
          It's not a social construct if you're looking at the scientific definitions. "White" or "European" is a social construct, but Caucasian is not.

          Europeans, Middle Easterners, Afghans, Pakistanis, Central Asians, North Africans are all majority Caucasian. Arabs aren't a race so you'd be wrong there.

          I'm aware that blacks are genetically the furthest from any other race; no Neanderthal mixture is the main reason.

          • Offline

            20
            (Original post by Nebuchadnezzaṛ)
            It's not a social construct if you're looking at the scientific definitions. "White" or "European" is a social construct, but Caucasian is not.

            Europeans, Middle Easterners, Afghans, Pakistanis, Central Asians, North Africans are all majority Caucasian. Arabs aren't a race so you'd be wrong there.

            I'm aware that blacks are genetically the furthest from any other race; no Neanderthal mixture is the main reason.

            Even if you call them Caucasians and Orientals, race is a social construct. The boundaries between races are arbitrarily set. Plenty of Russians in Siberia exist somewhere between Europeans and Asians. Plenty of Africans exist between arab and black. Plenty of people in South America exist between white and native american (the full range, so even labelling them as their own race doesn't help).

            Your map demonstrates this, Africa in particular. Those boundaries aren't sharp lines in reality, they are blurred. The way we draw the lines is arbitrary.

            And btw, what is your map actually trying to show? Historical races? If so, why is the US green? If it is post-colonial races, it makes even less sense.
            Offline

            12
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by Mathemagicien)
            Even if you call them Caucasians and Orientals, race is a social construct. The boundaries between races are arbitrarily set. Plenty of Russians in Siberia exist somewhere between Europeans and Asians. Plenty of Africans exist between arab and black. Plenty of people in South America exist between white and native american (the full range, so even labelling them as their own race doesn't help).

            Your map demonstrates this, Africa in particular. Those boundaries aren't sharp lines in reality, they are blurred. The way we draw the lines is arbitrary.

            And btw, what is your map actually trying to show? Historical races? If so, why is the US green? If it is post-colonial races, it makes even less sense.
            Not exactly, sure it's definitely not a straight line and should be blurred but it's generally correct. ie Germans would be ~95% caucasian then as you go east Slavs have more mongoloid mixture, and Siberians even more. Central Asians are a good example, they tend to look hapa. Somalis are also around 50:50 caucasian and negroid.

            With South Americans yeah there's huge variation. Peruvians or Bolivians for example are almost fully Amerindian and Argentinians are majority Spanish/Italian. Hispanic isn't a race, it's more of a collective group like Arabs. "Arabs" aren't really Arabs. Only the peninsula is Arab (Gulf states). Levantines and North Africans have been Arabised by invasions, Arabic language, Islam etc.

            Historical, US is meant to be blue, I accidentally copied an edited meme version lol.

            More accurate map:

            Offline

            8
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by Nebuchadnezzaṛ)
            It's not a social construct if you're looking at the scientific definitions. "White" or "European" is a social construct, but Caucasian is not.

            Europeans, Middle Easterners, Afghans, Pakistanis, Central Asians, North Africans are all majority Caucasian. Arabs aren't a race so you'd be wrong there.

            I'm aware that blacks are genetically the furthest from any other race; no Neanderthal mixture is the main reason.

            You will find that humans have been breeding with other humanoid species such as Denisovans. There are no pure humans even in Africa because early human in Africa also breed with other humanoid species
            Offline

            12
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by looloo2134)
            You will find that humans have been breeding with other humanoid species such as Denisovans. There are no pure humans even in Africa because early human in Africa also breed with other humanoid species
            Isn't denisovan admixture mainly in east asians?
            • Offline

              20
              (Original post by Nebuchadnezzaṛ)
              Not exactly, sure it's definitely not a straight line and should be blurred but it's generally correct. ie Germans would be ~95% caucasian then as you go east Slavs have more mongoloid mixture, and Siberians even more. Central Asians are a good example, they tend to look hapa. Somalis are also around 50:50 caucasian and negroid.
              Germans would definitely be more than 95% caucasion if I understand what you mean (although that is honestly a meaningless statement). Europe has (until after WW2) been one of the least genetically diverse continents around. IIRC we had two population bottlenecks, and of course after that a lot of trade, intermarriage, and wars with each other.

              You want a fancy map to show you where each race is - I can understand that - but any map that pigeonholes more mixed groups (like Turks, Somalis, Siberians, and Finns) is going to be very misleading.

              Hungary in particular is definitely Caucasian - historically they were a splinter group the same as Finns, but there was much more intermixing with Caucasians.

              As for Turkey, they certainly are the wrong colour too. Most western Turks are probably mostly Greek, with a bit of native Anatolian.



              There was a good map on Reddit (/r/europe) that showed a similar thing globally. (If genetics is something that interests you, there is no better place to discuss it - not joking, that place is obsessed with genetics).
              Offline

              8
              ReputationRep:
              (Original post by Nebuchadnezzaṛ)
              Isn't denisovan admixture mainly in east asians?
              According to the DNA analysis, the families of present-day human and Denisovans split apart about 800,000 years ago and then reconnected some 80,000 years ago. Denisovans share the most alleles with Han populations in southern China, with Dai in northern China, and with Melanesians, Australian aborigines, and other southeast Asia islanders.
              Offline

              12
              ReputationRep:
              (Original post by Mathemagicien)
              Germans would definitely be more than 95% caucasion if I understand what you mean (although that is honestly a meaningless statement). Europe has (until after WW2) been one of the least genetically diverse continents around. IIRC we had two population bottlenecks, and of course after that a lot of trade, intermarriage, and wars with each other.

              You want a fancy map to show you where each race is - I can understand that - but any map that pigeonholes more mixed groups (like Turks, Somalis, Siberians, and Finns) is going to be very misleading.

              Hungary in particular is definitely Caucasian - historically they were a splinter group the same as Finns, but there was much more intermixing with Caucasians.

              As for Turkey, they certainly are the wrong colour too. Most western Turks are probably mostly Greek, with a bit of native Anatolian.



              There was a good map on Reddit (/r/europe) that showed a similar thing globally. (If genetics is something that interests you, there is no better place to discuss it - not joking, that place is obsessed with genetics).
              Hungarians came very recently to Europe from the east, they were very asiatic originally, but now they are definitely caucasian. Same with Finns. It's why they're the only 2 Europeans who don't speak an Indo-European language.

              Western Turkey is Greek, whereas Eastern is more Middle Eastern. Kurds are an Iranic group. Some turks still have their original asian features too.

              I am, i'll check it out, cheers.

              Another map showing genetic distance because why not. Africans are genetically very distance from all other humans.

             
             
             
          • See more of what you like on The Student Room

            You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

          • Poll
            Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
            Useful resources
          • See more of what you like on The Student Room

            You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

          • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

            Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

            Quick reply
            Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.