Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (85021)	8/7/2000 8:47:05 PM
From: haqihana	Respond to of 108807

jbe, The prevailing theory, is that the ancestors of the Native Americans migrated across the Bering Land Bridge, circa 15,000 to 20,000 years ago, and were of Mongolian descent. As they disbursed throughout the Western Hemisphere, and settle in different environments, they adapted, which caused some differences in appearance, and traditions. The Eskimos are believed to have come to North American some thousands of years after the first migration, and have a much more oriental look to them. The Tlinguits, and Aleuts, in Alaska consider themselves to be different people from the Eskimos. Actually, I am fairly sure about the Tliguits, but the Aleuts may be Eskimos. It has been a long time since I have studied about the original human inhabitants of Alaska. ~H~

To: jbe who wrote (85021)	8/7/2000 10:32:23 PM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 108807

And aren't American Indians supposed to be Mongolian by origin, anyway? Last I heard there were at least three major genetic influxes into North American. The number is probably higher now with modern genetics. There is also some reason to believe that Russians, Chinese and Japanese also made landfall in pre-Columbian times. All the evidence indicates H. sapiens was so mobile that it is probably silly to group people by races. But tell that to America. We love our racial distinctions. I'm a bit of an amateur naturalist. I see more variation is size, shape, morphology, etc in a single local species of oak tree than I do in people. Humans are less genetically variable that almost any comparable species, except maybe some rare isolated ones. Another case where science gives way to politics. Perceptions are more important than reality when it comes to political power brokering.

To: jbe who wrote (85021)	8/7/2000 11:10:40 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Saw something on either the History Channel or Discovery Channel the other day that hypothesized by measuring eye sockets that Kenniwick man and the OTHER Caucasoid skeletons and skulls found in the Americas - yes, there are more - are related to the Ainu, or whatever stock the Ainu came from. There's no denying that both the Ainu and the Japanese live in Japan, and there's no denying that they aren't closely related. I can say by looking at the skulls that Kennewick man and the others differ dramatically from present-day American Indians, not so dissimilar, in my opinion, from the way the Caucasoid remains in Urumchi differ from present day Chinese. I feel somewhat troubled that, as a Caucasian, the fate of these Caucasians matters more to me than that of non-Caucasians. I am well aware of the unpleasant, even ugly implications. Nevertheless, I feel a strong bond to the blond, blue-eyed baby mummy from Urumchi that I don't feel to the Oriental ones. Make of that what you will, but remember my own youngest is blond and blue-eyed. As for the derivation of Caucasian, my understanding is that there is, or was, a credible theory that European man as we know him developed on the steppes of the Caucasus. I would say there is more evidence for northern Iran and Anatolia, but be that as it may.

To: jbe who wrote (85021)	8/8/2000 12:06:46 PM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 108807

Sorry, Charley, but "Caucasian" DOES mean "white people." I was pointing out exactly what you said in a later post. "Caucasian" means nothing because , as you pointed out, dark skin people can be "Caucasian" which isn't what most people mean by "white". The way most North American people use "white" (and the term Caucasian) is so imprecise that it is a meaningless identifier. QED: Caucasian doesn't mean white (as it is commonly used). As I said in a later post, I don't give much credence to race. I think it's measure and basis is poorly defined and not very scientific. Dictionary.com supports my contention (emphasis mine) and says: 1. Anthropology. Of, relating to, or being a major human racial division traditionally distinguished by physical characteristics such as very light to brown skin pigmentation and straight to wavy or curly hair, and including peoples indigenous to Europe, northern Africa, western Asia, and India. No longer in scientific use.

To: jbe who wrote (85021)	8/8/2000 12:48:19 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

I think if you brought a whole bunch of Caucasians (representative of the total variability in the Caucasian 'race' ) to a White Power rally, you'd see how small a portion of the whole enchilada would be welcome there as "white people". I'm really only guessing based upon the small number of extreme racial bigots I've known. And if you think that is too extreme a test, go to any racial community in North America (my primary pool of experience), take your same group of people that are all "Caucasian" and ask that community to pick out the "white people", maybe 30% would be identified as "white", probably including people who do or don't consider themselves (or are considered by others) as separate, such as people of Jewish ancestry, Indians, and the mountain peoples. SO, my point was, just because Kennewick man had "Caucasian" features, that fact was not suggesting that he was "European" in origin. Some people I think misunderstand the distinction. Asian, yes. European, almost certainly not. I think most people (but not me) equate "white people" with Europeans.