Re: Race defined
Posted By: Ras Heru In Response To: Re: Race defined (Leslie)
Date: Tuesday, 22 August 2006, at 12:36 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Race defined (Leslie)
"Please re-state what you were saying and asking. I cannot respond to what you’re saying because I don't undertand what you’re getting at."
Ok, hope i can clarify the best i can.You posted the definition of "race" and proposed your questions according to the said definitions, and this is what you stated:
"Race - a: a family, tribe, people or nation belonging to the same stock."
b: a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type.
- Webster's New College Dictionary.
Race - n: each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics.
- Concise Oxford English Dictionary.
In this regard, 'race' is a group of people who share major observable physical characteristics that can be transmitted via their genes. Race is based on phenotype or physical characteristics of the human specie. Physical features such as hair, skin colour, and facial appearance are all taken into consideration when defining one's race.
In other words, the term race points to the differences among groups of people. It distinguishes one population of humans from others based on visible traits such as skin color and facial features. These physical traits also point to biological and cultural adaptations to environment.
If this is the definition of race, how can there be one human race today?"-End of leslie's quotes"
This is what i stated immediately to that same post:
"Remember the time, when the europeans always wanted to "classify" the different races of man, and there was a man who divided it into 3 distinct "races", 1.Negroid 2.Caucasoid 3.Mongoloid. Leslie, i am trying to figure out which one is older, the reasoning of these 3 distinct "races", or the definitions in the dictionary that was proposed.Because, if the former is older, then that would mean that these dividers/"classifiers" knew that even though the "negroid" had different physical characteristics, they still had common features, thus all were classiefied as such, the same goes for the other 2 "races".I understand that your going by the meaning of the dictionary definition, in order to be accurate, nothing wrong with that, and thats something that a truth-seeker would do.But im sure that the europeans who stood by the negroid/caucasoid/mongoloid reasoning knew what it took to make up a "race", and most likely the definition that went with it in those times."
My whole purpose was to find out which was older, the definitions you gave of the term "race" OR the reasonings of the europeans on the 3 classifications of people on the planet which was 1.negroid 2.caucasoid 3.mongoloid.And i also said, if your responce to the definition you gave for the term "race" is accurate, meaning that there cant be any one race because race signifies and "distinguishes one population of humans from others based on visible traits such as skin color and facial features", I FIND A PARADOX, because at one time, MOST of the europeans definitions of what determined a race was by the pattern of 1.negroid 2. caucasoid 3.mongoloid, and EVENTHOUGH a group of africans had different facial features, they were STILL classified as negroid! part of my responce also had to deal with the egyptian link of "races" that you posted also.Im basically saying NOW, that i dont agree with that given definition of "race" because it is my knowing, that the blackwomb/man and their families are the originals of this earth AND the ONLY HUE-MAN species, therefore ONE people, which GOES BEYOND petty physical differences. Did i clarify more or not? thanks in advance.P.e.a.c.e
Messages In This Thread
Rastafari Speaks Archive is maintained by Administrator with RastafariSpeaks.com 5.12.
FAIR USE NOTICE:
This site may at times contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml