Talk:Caucasoid race

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

I think it is very strange that most information on this page states an obscure article written in 1954 as its source, presenting the information as if it was undisputed and factual. It is hardly a scientific fact that Nordic people have "mouths that stick out". I know nothing on this subject, but my common sense tells me a clean-up is quite desperately required. Tangsiuje 19:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

My guess is anti-racialists (folks who oppose racial classification of ANY kind) are responsible for this. They seem to be using obscure sources and discredited 19th century anthropologists as their primary references in order to make racial classification look as arbirtary and ridiculous as possible. I wouldn't call that non-POV. -- Gerkinstock 03:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The definition of Caucasoid for anthropologist and archaeologist is vastly different that what is written here. Caucasoid refers to persons of E. Asia and Australian decent. Its roots are in osteological science, characterized by particular configurations within bone structure. Native American ancestors reached the new world through Beringa (land bridge) and are considered to be of Caucasoid descent. Mitochondrial DNA evidence tells scientist that there is a link between Native Americans and Asians.

What is it for a laughable statement: "According to modern mainstream anthropology, the Caucasoid race is a concept that emerged as a result of history, not genetics[2]"? So why do all Caucasoid people come from the same genetic lineage, Y-macrohaplogroup F? What "genetics" does the author of this statement has in mind? Is there also some other genetics (e.g. Martian genetics) that I have never heard about and that the "mainstream anthropologists" use a source? Probably not. The problem lies in the fact that these PC clowns continue in spreading their demagogy despite advancement on the field of population genetics in the recent years. By the way, it is true that the majority of Native Americans and a large part of Asian mongoloids are also of Caucasoid descent. However, they have Caucosoid Y-lineages, but non-Caucasoid mtDNA lineages. In other words, they are stabilized mixtures of archaic Caucasoids, who penetrated into Central Asia 35 000 years ago, and indigenous "paleomongolid" populations of East Asia that are genetically close to australoids. Centrum99 02:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
"So why do all Caucasoid people come from the same genetic lineage, Y-macrohaplogroup F?..However, they have Caucasoid Y-lineages, but non-Caucasoid mtDNA lineages..genetically close to australoids" All of this would be interesting and, perhaps, even significant, if you had a source. A search for "Y-macrohaplogroup F" in Google and Google Scholar shows nothing.-Psychohistorian 16:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
So here we have it: An anti-racial mythologist who has virtually zero idea about the topic. This explains a lot. Plain ignorance is the key for understanding all the absurd anti-racial propaganda. Centrum99 23:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Psychohistorian's clear agenda needs to be addressed with the concrete evidence that Caucasians are descended from individuals not shared as ancestors with other groups, and that, since their origin, they have intermixed very little with other groups. The primary individuals responsible for Europeans, I, R1b, R1a, etc., are simply not found in other groups to any measurably significant degree, nor are other genetic origins found to any significant degree among Europeans. Please see my discussion of this below in Talk:Caucasoid race#Y-Haplogroup Evidence. Fourdee 20:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I ask for a source and you jump to talk about my *cough*"clear agenda"*cough* instead of providing such a source. That's rich.-Psychohistorian 21:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] sources

Much of the information in this and the Mongoloid article is from Carleton S. Coon's "Origin of Races". This article is badly in need of more recent information from mainstream physical anthropologists. We should also avoid obviously POV statements like calling Coon "the greatest craniofacial anthropometrist of the 20th century". Such attributions only serve to qualify much of the racist and outdated material of this article. --Pravit 03:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, I question the legitmacy of many of the claims and sources. For example, some of the references are from a Geocities website. That's not usually a a sign of academic legitimacy. Scientific topics should be backed up by sources like academic journals or university departments.Spylab 13:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


  • What is this? 55% of the world is caucasoid? Italians in the same category with Indians? I think this whole article should be deleted. Thulean 13:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Indians are actually "Caucasoid". If you use the term for people showing the predominance of Caucasid features. The low castes and tribals came into being as a mixture of old Caucasids and Veddid women ca. 30 000 years ago, hence they look less Caucasid,the upper castes are descendants of more recent invaders from Baluchistan (Dravidians) and Russia (Aryans), thus they look more Caucasid. Centrum99 21:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Isles and Mediterranean (Latin)

I would remove British Isles from the Mediterranean (Latin) section.

Not only is it very unlikely (since only recent immigration has had minor impact on the population of greater London), but the claim it is also lacking citation.

One could say that there has been a minor Mediterranean influence on the American population (since the 1500s), but of course that would be a humorous claim to make.

http://medish.shorturl.com/

[edit] deleted sentence - the concept of Caucasoid race came from anthropologists & academics, not out of thin air)

Actually, both. Early anthropologists (and we are talking about early anthropologists as race has been disproven in modern anthropology) did a lot of their work by armchair just thinking stuff up. -Psychohistorian 18:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, but as I wrote in your talk section, it was still academics who invented the concept, not random people on the street. The fact that the concept of Caucasoid has been proven false doesn't change the fact that it was commonly used term in academia at one time. The goal of this article is to document the origins, usage and criticisms of the term, with cited references. There should not be unsourced point of view pushing. Spylab 18:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The fact that it was used in academia at one time does not change the fact that it was created out of thin air. I'm all for using cited reliable sources - the more of them, the better. -Psychohistorian 18:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The concept of Caucasoid was proven false? By whom? Some neo-marxist anti-racial mythologists? The core of the Caucasoid race came into being about 45 000 years ago in the Near East - all people belonging to the "Caucasoid race" have the same genetic origin: they bear Y-haplogroup F. Centrum99 23:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
      • By the way, I feel sick while reading all this nauseous PC propaganda on pages about race. But we in the former Eastern Block enjoyed a similar propaganda during a long 40 years, so enjoy the same Neo-marxist vomit now "in the West"! Centrum99 23:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
        • The presented division of Europeans into three main sub-racial cathegories is insufficient. Eastern Europeans coming from the Ukrainian refugium (Y-haplogroup R1a1) are enough distinct to be taken separately as the "Baltid type". The article about the Dinaric type is written by someone, who obviously has no idea about the topic.Centrum99 21:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Curious

I would like to know what the average arm, leg, and torso length etc is for europeans.

  • The average trunk index (trunk length/height ratio) in Europeans is roughly between 51,5-53%, in Africans it is 48-51%, in Asians 53-54%. The average arm span of Europeans is ca. 103% body height (101-106%). The average arm length/body height ration is about 44,1% (in Africans it is ca. 45%). Centrum99 23:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Population

US National Library of Medicine defines caucasoid as "European Continental Ancestry Group" [1]. Therefore they can not make 55% of the world population. The source, apologeticspress, doesnt seem credible anyways. So I'll delete that line. Thulean 22:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article is full of concepts that are presented as facts and which are not taken seriously by anyone anymore.

One thing is to speak about the Caucasoids and another to speak about racial divisions that are absolutely out of scientific favor and present them as real. Veritas et Severitas 18:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attention to some users with clear agendas.

Because of some users with clear Nazi Nordicist agendas, some pages, like the white people's page, have been protected. Thulean is one of them. Watch out for his contributions.

Some people seem to be interested in continuing to use 18th, 19th and earl 20th century concepts that are now more than ridiculous. Hello! There is something called late 20th century and 21st century population genetics that is rendering all this information obsolete and ludicrous. Why are there no references to it?. How can somebody speak of races and peoples and ignore Cavalli-Sforza, Dr. Macdonalds, Dr. Bryan Sykes, Dr. Stephen Oppenheimer, etc. Is this really serious? Veritas et Severitas 18:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Somebody can still speak of races, because there are still some people, who have preserved common sense and don't want to take part in this perverse ideological clownery. Modern genetic research confirms old roots of the classical racial distribution, so what? The PC pseudo-scientific clowns abuse the unacquitance of the public with this subject and choose only those things that fit into their "innovative" conclusions. Where is some study synthetizing classical anthropology and recent findings concerning Y- and mtDNA haplogroups? Centrum99 08:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For the request of Mediterranean influence in the British Isles and more up-dated sources in general

Here you have some up-dated information:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1393742006

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=406108&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2006/10/10/ecbrits10.xml

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7817

Some people may object: That is just newspaper articles! OK, then read the real books: Blood of the Isles, by Bryan Sykes (In the US will be for sale in December as Saxons, Vikings and Celts) and Origins of Britons, by Stephen Oppenheimer, also a very recent edition.

Here you have some more basic information about genetic anthropology or population genetics, for those who may come across it for the first time:


http://www.dnaheritage.com/masterclass4.asp

Here you have some other links:

http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Cavalli.htm

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gallgaedhil/haplo_r1b_amh_13_29.htm

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:wS6DZf6b-RUJ:www.roperld.com/HomoSapienEvents.htm+r1b+europe+map&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=6&client=firefox-a

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/10/1964/FIG6

Or this one:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/T03

See the legend: CEE = Central Europe East. CEW = Central Europe West. EE = Eastern Europe. IberiaS = Spain. IberiaP = Portugal. ItalyN = North of Italy. ItalyS = South of Italy.See also this legend: Molecular (first row) = Different molecular DNA loci and frequency (second row) = Haplogroups. Av. = Average.

This study is from 2004 and has used up to 8 different genetic loci.

Of special interest are the similarities between the British Isles and Spain (IberiaS) and Portugal (IberiaP). Thousands of samples were taken from all over Spain and the British Isles, and also from the rest of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, especially the areas in Anatolia (Turkey) and Irak.

It is also very interesting to see the origins of the populations in Europe.

How can people here be speaking of race, their origins and distribution and ignore the most recent scientific findings in this area?

Veritas et Severitas 19:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I really wonder, what most recent scientific findings you are talking about. To my knowledge, the most recent scientific findings support very old roots of the classical racial divisions. The only change they bring is the correction of the interracial genetic relationships that were incorrectly postulated by anthropology. Centrum99 21:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
"To my knowledge, the most recent scientific findings support very old roots of the classical racial divisions" - you'd be a hell of a lot more convincing if you were quoting an expert instead of using weasel words.-Psychohistorian 19:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You need quotes of some "expert" for everything? The information is just available. Read something about haplogroups! Why should I quote some "expert", especially when he is forced to lie, being afraid of his job? Centrum99 23:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
It would be way too easy to reply to the heart of your comment, but I doubt it would be worthwhile. The paranoid are rarely reasonable. I'll just point out that whatever you believe is worth squat on Wikipedia as the article requires source and this discussion page should focus on writing the article - not listening to unfounded conspiracy theories. -Psychohistorian 01:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very odd..

I was instructed to, for a photo gallery, get photos of people in various groups to ensure variety; I was to make a section each for Caucasoid, mongoloid, and negroid types, with a page each for 3 subtypes of each type. I easily used wikipedia to figure out what to search for in google images- for mongloid, Chinese, Japanese, and native American; for Caucasoid, Germanic, Latin, and Russian; then I got to negroid. There is not such article- it's a disambiguation, and none of the links I clicked will give me subtypes because none of them admit anything like it exists. I figure, ok, African, Jamaican.... and something. I'll have to search on google because I can't find the info on Wikipedia- why is negroid the only one I can't find? Someone with knowledge of the controversy that led to this state should take note. thanks. Kuronue 16:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Belgians don't look so "Nordic"

The article states that Belgians are one of the good examples of the Nordic race. I don't think so: blondism is something common amongst children, and blond adults are a minority. People appearing "genuinly" Nordic are rare here (I am a Belgian talking out of experience). To my experience i see people here with rather Alpine/Dinaric features(especially in profile). Nordicism manifests mostly in eye and hair color (mostly with younger people for some reason). If you compare a bunch of Belgians or southern Dutchmen with northern Dutch people and scandinavians (check politicians), you'll see a clear difference... Funny thing is that i can't recall a single Flemish nationalist (who considder themselves germanic and such...) being typically nordic. The fact why Belgians (or at least Flemish) people are seen as nordic, is becuz of their Germanic language they (often) speak. The nordic race, known for being genetically weak, probably vanishes slowly due to stronger DNA from the South and East. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by N33 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree that Belgians are not Nordic and this article should not state such, but they are also not a single ethnicity as you are well aware. The Flemish are the same ethncity as southern Dutch. I believe Northern Dutch tend to be Frisian, which is a more pale-featured group. Also you will find that many "Nordic" people are not blonde as adults; that is a poor measure. The best measures by appearance are, more or less as you indicate, childhood blondeness, eye color and cephalic index, for both of the subjective terms Germanic and Nordic. Nordic is not a good terminology as it is often confused with Germanic, which is even more related to language than genetics, and that seems to be the mistake made in asserting Belgians are Nordic - which is doubly wrong since most are Walloons (Celtic I believe). I am going to continue this in a new section below, Talk:Caucasoid race#Y-Haplogroup Evidence. Fourdee 21:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, speaking a germanic language doesn't make you nordic at all. I am not sure about most Belgians being "Walloon", but maybe you mean genetically speaking. The appearances of Walloons are shorter, and their DNA is said to not differ alot from the Flemish. Its funny to read National Flemish identity-whores claiming they are oh so Germanic on those typical forums... They filter anything non-germanic out of their environment, which catapults them out of reality.

[edit] Y-Haplogroup Evidence

We have available today genetic testing which clearly indicates the descent of people, and this profiling of mutations shows there is no clear genetic distinction between Nordic, Germanic and Celtic (and no distinct underlying "prehistoric" group aside from the Celts, as had been supposed in the past). It is remarkable to see that a very few male individuals are responsible for each stage in the emergence of the European type - the vast majority of western Celts, from Northern Spain to Ireland and Wales, are descended from the single male individual responsible for the mutation labeled R1b, and they represent one of the most distinct and homogeneous groups in humanity, aside from Native Americans who have an even stronger homogeneity. However the descendants of R1b are also very common in the Germanic countries, along with I, the Nordic type which is the other major contributor to the Celts, and, unlike in the Celtic countries, R1a (eastern european) and several smaller male line contributors, including significant non-caucasoid contributors in Iceland and Norway (Haplogroup Q).

It is conventient to look at the Haplogroups prevalent in people to compare them to groups with which they are supposed to have a common origin. For example, English people have virtually identical Haplogroup distribution to Frisians[2], while the Welsh have very different distribution, validating the historical and linguistic evidence for the origin of the Angles.

Any statements made today about ethnic origin or identity should be based on haplogroup evidence, which is increasingly well documented and mapped. All references to pre-genetic anthropology are suspect and should be provided for historical perspective only, as they made some incorrect assumptions and used subjective terms. This is not to completely discount the study of cranial features or the older labels for groups of people, however we should be careful to be certain that those findings are validated by the facts we know today.

Looking at distribution maps of Haplogroups and a hierarchy indicating the descent of the mutations[3], several things are immediately clear. For one, the genetic makeup of Sub-Saharan Africans, Europeans, and Asians are markedly different from each other. Europeans share essentially no common ancestry with Africans after the mutated individuals. A very few male individuals were responsible for many ethnic groups (such as R1b, western european - all from a single male), although some ethnic groups reflect considerable diversity. However, some problems do arise, particularly with the distinction between Cacuasoid and Mongoloid, as they have an intermixed origin. While Europeans, aside from the incidence of the Q type in Iceland and Norway, have essentially unique Haplogroups not shared with Asians or Africans, the origins of those haplogroups are not so distinct. For example, I, which gives rise to the nordic type, is much farther distant in origin from R1a and R1b (the primary european types) than the Q, Siberian and Native American type.

It is useful to classify Europeans and Caucasoids as distinct from other groups because they are much more closely related to each other than to other groups in terms of stemming from a few distant fathers not shared by other racial categories. Most significantly, the ancestors responsible for I, R1b and R1a (and a few others) are the male line origins of almost all of Europe and very few outside genetic contributors are found in that population, and those genetic fathers are not found to any significant degree in outside populations. This makes Europeans a distinct family of people who are much more closely related to each other than other groups. We should utilize the clear, incontrovertible evidence of genetic research in validating all statements about races, and not allow any particular agenda to load the discussion with unscientific assertions.

-- Fourdee 20:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gentics section POV

The genetics section for this article only gives a single POV. It relates only to a single paper, this paper is also quoted extensively in the section, without it being apparent that these are actual quotes from the paper. This may be considered plagiarism. Pleas include other studies, especially genetic studies that give a different interpretation. There are plenty of papers from geneticists that do not agree that "race" is a biological concept. It is a clear breach of the NPOV policy to have a one sided argument. While I have no problem with including genetic data that support the concept of "races" it should be clearly noted that those populations of people that do not conform to any "race" (people from "boundry locations" in the article, by the way this is not "some individuals" but the populations of these regions) are considered by many geneticists to indicate the clinal as opposed to discrete distribution of genetic variation in the human population. This section is poorly written and there is far too much direct "copy and paste" from t he cited article. Quotes should be clearly marked as such. This paper cites the paper used in the article, and the abstract of the paper states We show that statistically significant boundaries can be described between groups of populations, but different clusters are identified, depending on the assumptions of the model. In addition, these clusters do not correspond to the clusters inferred from previous analyses of the same or of other polymorphisms. We conclude that it is indeed possible to cluster genotypes according to geography, but no study so far identified unambiguously anything that can be regarded as a major genetic subdivision of humankind, and hence discontinuous models of human diversity are unsupported by data. So it is highly POV to imply that there is some sort of consensus in the field of genetics as to whether "races" have any basis in biology or genetics. This implies that what "races" come out of any given model depends on what model and what data are used. Only citing papers that support the "racial" model is really not good enough. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, it is not here to give a single point of view, nor is it here to give the opinions of editors. I have a wealth of papers about the genetics of humans, some that favour the "racial" concept, some that think it is incorrect. We need to use papers that give both points of view. I am particularly worried by this comment from User:Fourdee: Isn't the intent here to have the article accurately reflect the fact that Europeans are a distinct family genetically and in other ways and that there is a factual basis for defining a caucasian race, especially as far as Europeans.[4] It seems to me that this is a call to introduce a single point of view into the article, and to deliberately ignore wikipedia policies about neutrality. Wikipedia and the Internet are not here for either of the things this user is claiming. Wikipedia is here as an encyclopaedia, it does not give a single point of view. Indeed stating that it is a "fact" Europeans are a "family" and that there is a "factual basis" for defining Caucasians as "Europeans" implies a very biased perspective. What is a fact is that there is no consensus in the field, the article should reflect this. Give all arguments and all points of view and let the reader decide. Do we even need this article? As it stands it's an extremely poor article. Alun 07:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's not a great article, but it is an important one, at the very least for its historical usage and significance. I didn't say I wanted the article to reflect only one point of view, merely that it should include any available evidence which seems to provide a factual basis for the distinction of Europeans from other groups. I will admit up front that I am biased on this topic and certainly have a point of view I would like to see represented, but not to the exclusion of other reasonable views. I think, based on my limited understanding of haplogroup distribution and descent, that there is a better argument for Europeans being a fairly distinct group than all "Caucasoids" and that is what I would like the article to reflect, but I am not familiar with all the Caucasoid haplogroups and their distributions, there may be evidence for them as a whole being fairly distinct. Are they 100% distinct and isolated? Of course not; the question is whether there is a meaningful, factual and significant distinction to be made between the ancestry of one group or race versus another. The following numbers are hyperbole and just off the cuff but they aren't far from the truth either: if, say, 99/100 of western europeans are descended from the same 2 male invididuals, and essentially 0/100 of sub-saharan africans are descended from those individuals, that sure sounds like a factual basis for calling the western europeans a distinct family to me. But I am no expert, I am just giving my opinion based on the limited citations I offered above and my general (vague) understanding of this topic. I agree we should cite experts, as with any potentially controversial article. Fourdee 09:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok that's great. Personally I think that genetic data should not be included in articles like this, I tend to the opinion that the genetic basis of "race" is so controversial that the articles specifically about genetics and race should deal with this issue, we should then just link to these articles. For example the article cited here is a general one about whether "race" is a proper biological phenomenon or not, it's not really about Caucasoids or Caucasians, so I would argue that it's correct context is in an article that debates the relative merits of "race" as a genetic or biological construct. This is not to say that I am implacably opposed to such material being included here, as always I'm happy to go along with consensus. Your analogy about Europeans being descended from a more recently related group of individuals is a fair one, though it is also fair to say that there were several founding events in Europe, over several millenia, and they were from distinct founding populations. The number of discrete ancestors is larger and more genetically and geographically varied. For example there are Middle Eastern neolithic markers in the population of the British Isles that are more recent than the older paleolithic markers (though still dating from 6000 years ago) for both mtDNA and Y chromosome DNA (I believe haplogroup J for mt DNA and E3b for T chromosome DNA). I'm sure we can work to inprove the article. I think it's good to use Y chromosome and mtDNA data as much as possibly when we can, as these are non recombining molecules that are inherited in patrilineal and matrilineal fashion. Most of the science has been done using these anyway.Alun 11:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The section currently has got 3 sources. One of them is a major study and cites multiple studies. However, if you think it is not neutral, feel free to edit...Lukas19 15:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
On the one hand we have a term which has been effectively used for more than a century in common language and in fields such as forensic anthropology (which is to this day able to accurately predict the usual usage of "caucasian" when applied to a living person from a skull alone). So we have a meaningful, useful, long-standing, fairly specific term, despite some vagueness at the very fringes. On the other hand we have some people who have been harping for a few decades that the term is meaningless based on "science" - mostly pre-DNA notions of human descent and conjecture from what I can tell. It is very relevant to point out the factual basis for the term, such as genetic distinctness, because that is the core of the argument against it - that the groups are not genetically distinct. If there is a "cline" at the fringes of the races, that says nothing, because the people at the fringes are not members of any particular race. Fourdee 18:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Is it a "fairly specific term"? I get the impression that you want to use it here to mean "European race". Is this what you mean? This is not how the OED defines the word. We need to be clear what the word "Caucasoid" actually means, and not what you want it to mean. Likewise we need to reflect general usage, and not specific technical usage alone. This is an encyclopaedia so it needs to reflect everything. As far as I can see it smply means "like Caucasian people" or "relating to Caucasian people". I don't understand what you mean by "genetic distinctiveness". There is no "genetic distinctivness" in human populations, human genetic diversity is clinal. For example if one looks at the R1b haplogroup, it is clear that it has a cline 'within the European population that runs west-east. It occurs at 90% in Ireland and the Basque country, at about 80% in Wales, Scotland and western England, is at about 60% in eastern England, decreases to about 40% in Germany, is at about 30% in Norway etc. It is clinal within the continent. Other clines can easily be detected. By this analysis Europe is divided east-west "racially", whereas the article claims north-south. I have no problem including genetic analyses, but I think we cannot rely only upon those that reflect only our POV. Having said that I can find no real evidence for the existence of a "Caucasoid race". So I think this article needs to be merged with Caucasian race, or simply AfD'd. Please try to finf a definition of Caucasoid race. I do not think the European Continental Ancestry Group represents a reliable source in that it is a single usege, used in house for a particular organisation, it is not a universally recognised nomenclature. Indeed they no longer use the term Caucasoid. Alun 07:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Likewise the European Continental Ancestry Group also includes Indian people, see here, if you click on the link to Caucasoid Race, it directs you to the European Continental Ancestry Group. Clearly Indian people are a part of this group. Lukas's contention that Indian people are not part of the European Continental Ancestry Group is not supported by this link. Alun 07:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't realize there was a Caucasian race article as well, they need to be merged. The term Caucasoid has some historical significance but doesn't merit a separate article.

As to your arguments about race, I look at it this way, if you will entertain an analogy: there are a great many colors in the visible light spectrum between blue and red, but nobody would deny blue and red are different colors. A black african is not the same genotypically, phenotypically or ancestrally as a white european. These terms are useful and factually accurate, despite the spectrum in between. Not everyone falls under a clear label, but that doesn't invalidate the label, and the overwhelming majority of people do fall in a clear category. I would personally like to see a solid definition for race based on science, with whatever assumptions are necessary to make that happen, rather than the deconstruction of race by people with a sociopolitical agenda against ethnocentrism and endogamy. After all, the average person has no confusion about how to apply the labels black, white and asian. Fourdee 10:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/u/Talk%7ECaucasoid_race_89b6.html"