General Discussion

Lionessa

(3,894 posts)

14. Here: Oh, and it turns out I am wrong.

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:23 AM

Dec 2012

Latinos are causasian, Native Americans are considered mongolian according to this article. I swore when I researched this for high school Native Americans were considered caucasian, but that was many years ago, and perhaps I've misremembered.

The Major Divisions of the Human Race

Most anthropologists recognize 3 or 4 basic races of man in existence today. These races can be further subdivided into as many as 30 subgroups.

Ethnographic division into races from Meyers Konversationslexikon of 1885-90 is listing:

Caucasian races (Aryans, Hamites, Semites)
Mongolian races (northern Mongolian, Chinese and Indo-Chinese, Japanese and Korean, Tibetan, Malayan, Polynesian, Maori, Micronesian, Eskimo, American Indian),
Negroid races (African, Hottentots, Melanesians/Papua, “Negrito”, Australian Aborigine, Dravidians, Sinhalese)

http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/how-many-major-races-are-there-in-the-world/

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

62 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Real and Racist Origins of the Second Amendment [View all] HoosierRadical Dec 2012 OP

Native Americans are caucasian, so the argument falls flat. Perhaps Lionessa Dec 2012 #1

Why do you say that Native Americans are Caucasian? iemitsu Dec 2012 #2

She doesn't nt. BainsBane Dec 2012 #7

The same way Latinos are caucasian. Lionessa Dec 2012 #12

Latinos aren't Caucasian either. Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #21

This is my understanding too. iemitsu Dec 2012 #54

Hispanic persons may be of any race Recursion Dec 2012 #26

Here: Oh, and it turns out I am wrong. Lionessa Dec 2012 #14

Most anthropologists don't recognize biological human races as valid concept tama Dec 2012 #33

THIS - SUPPORTED BY SCIENCE, NOT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS Democracyinkind Dec 2012 #51

Its ok to shout when you need to be heard. iemitsu Dec 2012 #55

Anthropologists may not, but other scientists do. Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #60

Where do Indians (from India) fall? Mongolian? nt Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #59

they were not seen that way in the 1700's, nice try though CreekDog Dec 2012 #4

Their color was nonetheless entirely insignificant, we would've done the same to any color, Lionessa Dec 2012 #13

racism evolved as a justification BainsBane Dec 2012 #36

so you're saying that there wasn't racism against Native Americans back then? CreekDog Dec 2012 #47

I think the sense, back then, was more along class and culture lines than race lines. iemitsu Dec 2012 #56

Can you give an example of white populations who were wiped out and/or forced off their land ecstatic Dec 2012 #62

Your point is correct treestar Dec 2012 #27

When the native Americans started the Pequot War in 1637 by killing an Englishman who they thought AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #29

The Pilgrims were far from peaceful, and they did steal land obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #32

Post removed Post removed Dec 2012 #38

whatever obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #39

From Wiki: tama Dec 2012 #40

The 2nd Amendment was written in 1791 gollygee Dec 2012 #37

That is an odd argument. ismnotwasm Dec 2012 #41

You might want to rethink your premise: friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #3

How can the 196os explain the late-colonial era and Early Republic? BainsBane Dec 2012 #8

The late-colonial and early Republic had their own racist gun control laws friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #9

Yes, that was in order to prop up slavery BainsBane Dec 2012 #11

Racists did not want *any* rights to apply to blacks. friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #46

You do realize Dredd-Scott was about slavery? BainsBane Dec 2012 #50

"I don't know why you think guns were the most important right." I don't. friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #52

In all the writings by slaves and freedmen BainsBane Dec 2012 #53

Please repost this for the Gungeon folks, they are out of the loop on this notion. CTyankee Dec 2012 #5

Who are the Gungeon folks? HoosierRadical Dec 2012 #10

For your own sanity, don't venture there BainsBane Dec 2012 #17

Perhaps some people haven't read this. I haven't. I would really like to hear the CTyankee Dec 2012 #20

post it over in RKBA BainsBane Dec 2012 #24

Thanks for the heads up HoosierRadical Dec 2012 #25

some are fine BainsBane Dec 2012 #34

Gun Control and RKBA under Justice and Public Safety. CTyankee Dec 2012 #19

public safety BainsBane Dec 2012 #35

Social control BainsBane Dec 2012 #6

And, keep in mind, whites were far outnumbered in the south bhikkhu Dec 2012 #31

hmm BainsBane Dec 2012 #42

By mid 19th century, just before the civil war bhikkhu Dec 2012 #57

This message was self-deleted by its author BainsBane Dec 2012 #58

Exactly. And the NRA cleverly got people parroting their devised "gun control is racist" line... villager Dec 2012 #15

How would you describe the Mulford and Sullivan acts hack89 Dec 2012 #22

Though gun apologists get to ignore the racist roots of gun proliferation? Or the actual politics villager Dec 2012 #43

Just how the hell is gun proliferation racist? nt hack89 Dec 2012 #44

Look at who most of the victims of gun violence -- recurring massacres aside - tend to be villager Dec 2012 #48

It is about 50 - 50 hack89 Dec 2012 #49

What about the 'well-regulated militia'? tblue Dec 2012 #16

Yes only SCOTUS ruled differently BainsBane Dec 2012 #18

The 2nd was/is not about the States. The Militias allow We the people to avoid jmg257 Dec 2012 #23

There may be many valid interpretations tama Dec 2012 #61

I'm surprised it is not about slave rebellion treestar Dec 2012 #28

I imagine that would be covered under the militia clauses... jmg257 Dec 2012 #30

I'm sure the founders knew pretty damn well that slaves could indeed rebel and CTyankee Dec 2012 #45