Brompt
"Phil, it has to be more complex than that surely. Using the term Caucasian (I think) puts white Britons like you and I in same 'club' as Asians from (say) India or Sri Lanka"
I'm sure it is more complex!
However, from what I remember being told (and reading - wish I could find one of my books on the subject - it's in a bookcase somewhere among several hundred other books!!) this is actually (?) the case.
Bear in mind I am talking about something I studied 40 odd years ago but in simple terms:-
1."man" evolved in a heartland probably in E Africa at least 200,000 to 1m (or more) years ago.
2. From there, migrations occurred to a Middle East "heartland"
3. From the Middle East further migrations occurred about 50 - 100,000 years ago. This after further "characteristics" had evolved (lighter skin, narrower head, straighter hair and longer narrow noses.
4. Some migrated west towards W Europe following the riches of the Loess deposits from the last ice age for their "agriculture" and in moving west over thousands of years developed even lighter skin, lighter straighter hair and narrower heads and long narrow noses! (Not as much heat and sun?)
5. Some migrated east to a heartland in N India with some same characteristics as "Europeans" (straighter hair, narrow , long noses) but retaining the dark skin (in the case of Tamils very dark skin - but still essentially "Caucasians" in contrast to the "Negroids" who remained in Africa and spread throughout tropical Africa, and, in very recent times to Southern Africa.)
6. The "Mongoloids" migrated early to somewhere in China where another "heartland" developed and they developed their characteristics over thousands of years. From there the Mongoloids also spread in some cases via land bridges during the last ice age to the Americas where the slightly different characteristics of the Native North and South Americans developed.
7. I think that (when I heard these things) there was still considerable debate about the origins of the Polynesians (though at that time they were classed as Caucasians) and the Australian Aboriginals (who, we were told were Negroids who again had migrated across land bridges during the Ice age).
None of this negates your point about ethnicity and religion which I think is similar to my point about "race" being an incorrect term for "nationality".
I have always thought that I am in the "same club" as "Asians from (say) India or Sri Lanka" - as you say " it's about ethnicity; partly a more refined definition of race and partly about culture including religion."
"the term (race?) seems to use the sort of classification techniques around noses and lips that defined race in apartheid SA. On that basis I'm suspicious of it."
But, as I understand (understood?) it, that is how the "experts" define (-d) "race". It's only suspicious surely in the way the S Africans misused it to discriminate.
Anyway, I'm no "expert" it's just that I think that most discrimination has little to do with "race" as I see it - it's to do with misplaced nationalism, religion, bigotism etc.
Quite prepared to be re-educated by people who know more and who are more up to date on the subject!
Sorry for long post, best wishes to all for Christmas of whatever race, nationality, creed, sex etc!
|
