Racial Categorization- The Oceanian Paradox

ultracool writes: This is a very interesting and insightful post, I see you are very intelligent and bold to write all this stuff, Robert. Still I think the problem with genes is that they don’t always match appearance, I think that were you to sort races according to physical traits only, you could put most Oceanians in the same race as Africans, as they share several traits like dark skin, thick lips and kinky hair, though I am not sure about Australians as they have quite a distinct look.

Even if you do physical appearance, you cannot throw those people in with Africans. Those people are Australoids – Melanesians, Papuans, Negritos, Senoi, Veddoids, Tamils, Aborigines, a few Polynesians, Ainu and a few Amerindians such as Tierra del Fuegans and some Baja Californians have very similar skulls. All of the skulls plot right together on a chart. Granted, Australoid and African skulls are close to each other on charts, but they do plot differently.

Polynesians and Micronesians are different – they are an Australoid-Mongoloid mix. Their genes plot with Asians, and their skulls plot differently from Australoids. However, some Polynesian skulls plot next to other Australoids such as the Ainu.

Australoid genes are all over the map. Melanesian genes plot next to other Oceanians with a subgroup of Island SE Asians that also includes some Indonesians. Philippines Negritos plot with Filipinos. Thai Negritos plot with Thais. Andaman Islanders plot off on their own, possibly in two completely different major races. Veddoids and Tamils plot with the other Indian Caucasians. Papuans and Aborigines are related only to each other and even then only very distantly, and they are very far from everyone else. Next to Africans and Andaman Islanders, Papuans and Aborigines are are the other oldest races. Outside of Africa, Andaman Islanders and Thai Negritos are the oldest races.

15 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Ainu, Amerindians, Andaman Islanders, Anthropology, Asians, Blacks, East Indians, Filipinos, Indonesians, Melanesians, Micronesians, Negritos, Northeast Asians, Oceanians, Papuans, Physical, Polynesians, Race/Ethnicity, SE Asians, South Asians, Thai

15 responses to “Racial Categorization- The Oceanian Paradox

  1. Anglo-Saxon Maverick

    The only Pacific Islander I knew passed for a light skinned African-American (his dad was white, his mom was Pacific Islander).

  2. Anglo-Saxon Maverick

    On a slightly different subject, all racial/ethnic classifications in the U.S. aren’t quite right.

    Races:
    -Ethnicities;

    Caucasoid:
    – European
    -Middle Eastern/East Indian

    Mongoloid:
    -North East Asian
    -South East Asian
    -Amerindian
    -Aleutian people

    Negroid:
    -Khoisan
    -Other Sub-Saharan Africans
    -Australoid

    • Is this your perception or how you perceive US classification?

      Technically Australoid are their own thing along with Khoisan being Capoids.

      What you are using is a rough model that I believe is similar to Rushton;s beliefs but not white right in terms of actual organization.

    • Australoids are not Negroids. They are about as far from Negroids genetically as you can get. Actually, Australoids are Macro-Asians. They are closer to Mongoloids than to any other group on genes.

      It is up in the air what to do with Khoisan but I would not really call them Negroids. Maybe better to call them Capoids. They are very different from regular Black folks.

      • Anglo-Saxon Maverick

        Interesting, like I said above I’ve only known one pacific Islander who looked African American/mixed black (his mom was from the Pacific and his dad was a European-American) that’s what I based it off of, appearances.

        I’ve never seen a Khoisan, although I did see a black lady speaking German in D.C. (possibly Namibian with the Khoisans?) I was sitting on a bench so I couldn’t see her close. Capoids are still in tribes, I think, it seems like few have integrated.

  3. The austroloids are more primitive because they didn’t mix themselves,with other races.

    • Actually I believe it has more to do with their environmental pressures not giving them the factors to really evolve beyond their current state.

  4. S.D.

    Except in India. I am of the belief a Dravidian or Veddoid from South India and an Australian are fairly similar.

    For that matter Indian traders did reach Northern Australia during the spread of Hinduism to Southeast Asia (Thailand, Cambodia, Malaysia) and Northern Aboriginals do possess some genes from this ancient interaction.

    • pepperroncini

      The genetic link between India and Australia is not conclusive. Most recent Genetics paper on the earlier mentioned links has found no recent links.

      http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2816%2900078-6

      Also Dravidian and Veddoid are 2 different races. Some Veddoid have taken up Dravidian languages just as other Veddoid have taken up Indo-Aryan.

      In Sri Lanka is the only distinct Vedda population and they speak a creole that is neither Dravidian nor Indo-Aryan ; it shares more with Indo-Aryan but has a substratum that is distinct and different from Dravidian and Indo-Aryan. India does not have distinct Vedda populations as they have linguistically and culturally assimilated into the surrounding Dravidian,Indo-Aryan and Munda speaking populations.

  5. S.D.

    Sri Lankan Sinhalese trace their roots to the Bay of Bengal and are ancient Bengalis. That would make sense that they speak an ancient Indo-Aryan dialect.

    Tamil Nadu were of course transported to Ceylon by the British more recently.

    • pepperroncini

      Only the plantation Tamils came to Sri Lanka during the time of the British empire, to work on British plantations. These Tamils are a small minority of the total Tamil population and are concentrated in the Sri Lankan up-country, where most of the Tea plantations are.

      Most Tamils in Sri Lanka are descended from Tamils who came 1500 years ago. Before the Sinhalese colonized Sri Lanka there would have been Tamils in Northern Sri Lankan because the distance between Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka is very small, so Tamil fisherfolk would have had some small settlements along the Sri Lankan coast.

      Sinhalese themselves are a mix of people from Bengal, Orissa and South India. A lot of South Indians lost their Dravidian tongue and adopted Sinhala. Sinhalese royalty married South Indian royalty.

  6. S.D.

    Sinhalese are from the bay of Bengal and some ancient Bengali of sorts so it would make sense they speak an ancient Indo-Aryan race.

  7. S.D.

    I think Sinhalese are primarily Bengali and they could pass on the streets of Calcutta or Dhaka.

    Pure Sinhalese have the same vaguely Mongolian skin and eye appearance as a Bengali.

    The South Indian admixture cannot be very significant to the DNA.

  8. Ultra Cool

    This confusion on genetic proximity is why I think it’s best to classify race by physical appearance first and only when looks are don’t fit major groups very well, resort to genes. It’s more practical and only requires good eyesight.

    I think populations that are physically similar belong to the same race even if their genes are distant and populations that are physically different belong to different races even if their genes are similar.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s