This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Forensic anthropologist Caroline Wilkenson says Mongoloids feature "absent browridges". [1] Moreover, Mongoloid skulls are the most gracile in the human family. It is believed that the Mongoloid skull type is a very recent evolutionary development. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.61.183 ( talk) 17:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Mongoloids are distinguished by their non-projecting noses, flat faces formed by forward projecting cheekbones, round eye orbits, shovel-shaped incisors, and complex cranial sutures, flattened chins, elliptic dental archs and brachycephalic skulls. They also possess wormian bones at a higher frequency than other ethnic groups. With some few exceptions, they are also known to maintain oblique palpebral fissures in adulthood, also known as epicanthal folds; although this trait is universally present in all humans during some period of their development, epicanthal folds usually disappear when the bridge of the nose begins to elevate among individuals of other races. The vast majority of Mongoloids have straight black hair, dark brown eyes, and the skin colour may vary between very pale to dark brown, though mostly yellowish. Mongoloids also are characterized by an absence or thinly distributed facial and body hair, and lesser sweat glands. The width between the eyes is greater in Mongoloids and they have the least mandible projection. Far East Asians tend to have shorter limbs relative to their torso length than South East Asians, although they tend to have bigger bodies.[29] Traits may vary, because of climatic variance and racial admixture within certain groups.
"...creatures so incontrovertibly ugly and repulsive as the ordinary specimens of the Mongolian race..." --Is this really necessary??
The article sited does not support what the paragraph says. Southern mongoloids are NOT south east asian. South East Asians are mainly Austronesia (Dravidian migration). Of course many have intermarried with Mongoloids ie. Chinese traders. Intranetusa 20:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
"Other nomenclatures were proposed, such as "Mesochroi",[8] but Mongoloid was widely adopted"
Wisely? This is blatantly opinionated!
--That was funny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.169.163 ( talk) 20:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
mongoloids are the peoples originating from mongolia. duh. information technology wasn't too advanced in the 19th c, sure, and concepts of racial heritage were different then from what we enjoy today, so you can't exactly blame people like the author of _Observations on the Ethnic Classification of Idiots_ for advancing anti-asian ideas, but their tacky and antiquated racism should at best be a subheading in the discussion of peoples of mongolian heritage. and downs syndrome? wtf?
This article needs to be improved like the Negroid article, or alternately merged into Asian (people) like Caucasoid was. I have removed some unreliable internet sources(Geocities kook websites used as references by certain editors), but the other internet sources cited in the article need to be replaced. The entire article seems to be reflecting the opinion of one editor. - Pravit 18:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This section needs some clean up. First, southern mongoloids designates not only Filipinos, Malays and Indonesian but southern Chinese, Thais, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Burmese and most tribes in Southeast Asian and Eastern India. I don't think the add about Vietnamese being of east Asian origin is needed because the section is not about southeast Asia but southern mongoloid. Two completely different things. Mediterranean Caucasoid don't only include Mediterraneans but also Arabians and Indians. Its not about location. CanCanDuo 22:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) says that the term most used by the group itself should be used to name articles. A Yahoo search showed that the search term "Mongoloid people" got 26,700 hits while "Mongoloid race" got 2,810 hits. Alternatively, a google search for the term "Mongoloid people" got 964 hits while "Mongoloid race" got 17,400 hits. If these are summed together, then the search term "Mongoloid people" gets a total of 27,664 while "Mongoloid race" gets a total of 20,210 hits. Since the term "Mongoloid people" is 37% more frequently used than "Mongoloid race", this article's name should be changed to "Mongoloid people".---- Dark Tea 14:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Many of the hits for "Mongoloid people" are not for the race as a whole, but individual peoples with Mongoloid characteristics. "Mongoloid peoples" gets an almost equal number of hits (981 vs. 1010) and all of those are talking about one or more of a number of peoples rather than the race as a unit. If combined, a majority of references are to the idea of multiple peoples.
Mongoloid is not a demonym that national groups apply to themselves. It is an anthropological term. "Mongoloid race" is in line with the anthropological use. Arguably, most older anthropological work is steeped in assumptions of European superiority, as well as plain errors, but this is a problem of the work itself, and anachronistically substituting nonequivalent current terminology does not get rid of it, but just confuses the issue. If anything, updating older racist work with modern terminology may legitimize it. -- JWB 20:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Debate moved from Japheth page
Bindon claims Coon believed in racial superiority, making Coon not WP:RS. According to Bindon, the expert, Coon didn't believe in a possibility of superiority; Coon definitely believed some races were superior to others. Moreover, Coon believed in real or de facto if you will racial differences, ordering races in a hierarchy by these differences. Due to Coon believing in racial supremacy, he is not WP:RS which excludes racist sources in articles that are not about their person.---- Dark Tea 02:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
This article certainly needs a cleanup. The seemingly pathological marking of many wholly uncontroversial statements as potential OR is tiresome, and I would plead for common sense here. One important note regarding the controversy above. It has been repeatedly claimed by DT that Carleton Coon invented the term, and that therefore if some significant aspects of Coon's theories are invalidated then the term is too. I think that's a non sequitor in any case, but having quickly looked at the history of the term, it seems to date back at least to Thomas Huxley, long, long before Coon, and is discussed in literature of the 1880s. An article in the 1886 vol of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland (p.304) proposes renaming "Professor Huxley's Mongoloid division" as the "Mesochroic" race (that one never caught on, needless to say). Paul B 13:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
As of May 22, Dark Tea has removed almost all physical anthropology information from the article and removed physical anthropology terms as jargon, even something as commonly known as epicanthic fold.
As I see it, the subject of this article is the technical term used in anthropology, and similarly technical terms normally used with it are not at all out of place.
As Dark Tea and others have pointed out, Mongoloid is inappropriate and offensive when applied to race as a social or political phenomenon. This is all the more reason for this article to stick to the technical use of the term, and mention race in the social sense only to make clear it is out of scope, referring inquiry to the appropriate articles on race in the social sense. Instead, the article seems to be moving in the opposite direction, becoming a short and dumbed-down article on race in general.
Rather then immediately reverting, I would like to discuss and come to an agreement here. -- JWB 18:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Now you are arguing that skeletal data belongs in Forensic facial reconstruction, not here.
The "Mongoloid" concept is almost entirely about physical anthropology, primarily skeletal data, in the late 19th and early to mid 20th centuries. It is not about present-day ethnic groups, as explicitly stated in the article and apparently agreed by all. It is not about racial concepts prior to the late 19th century, which were discussed using different terms.
You repeatedly expunge almost all actual data from the article. If you feel documentation of the concept is inappropriate, the proper thing to do is to AfD the article, instead of unilateral creeping deletion. -- JWB 06:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Although the indigenous peoples of the Americas are somewhat distinct from East and Southeast Asian mongoloids, the term mongoloid has been used to describe the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Why hasn't this been mentioned? Zachorious 23:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not the indigenous peoples of the Americas are mongoloid or not, it should at least be mentioned that many classifications to lump the natives of America with the rest of the Mongoloid race. And then afterwards you can type a criticism to the classification system. Zachorious 05:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not an expert on the matter, but i would certainly think common sense suggests that American Natives may and have been classified as Asiatic/ Mongoloid. They migrated from eastern Asia to America only 15,000 years ago, well after Mogoloids differentiated into such. Secondly, we can clearly see Asiatic features in their phenotype. ANy genetic differences between modern Asians and Native Americans can be attributed to founder and bottle-neck effects Hxseek ( talk) 08:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Since the current prevailing theory still suggests that The American Natives originated from East asia/ Siberia, therefore by definition they are Mongoloid ! !
-- 69.216.130.45 ( talk) 20:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC) I don't disagree that Native Americans should be considered their own race (in fact, recent evidence points to a possible migration from Western Europe when Europe was connected to North America via a land-bridge). But wikipedia is about history as well, and it needs to be mentioned that classification systems in the past, Amerindians were grouped under the "Mongoloid" classification with East/Southeast Asians. And since know one has made an effort yet to mention this, I will do so. Zachorious 00:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I have said this in the other articles, eg Negroes and Caucasians
THe articles are frustrating and undermine the larning process. THe whole 'PC' approach to learning these days is wrong
I want to read about Mongoloid peoples origin, population and diversity. The article should focus on this. Yes by all means identify the short-comings of such a rigid classification. But it should not detract from the quality of the article.
Instead this article craps on about definitions, and ends up not saying anything.
The article should be written by a real author and not some self-righteous hippie. I know there is a move away from racial classification after WWII, and race has been used to discriminate people. But this doesn;t mean that we should just INVENT an idea that race doesn;t exist when it obviously does
First, when you look at male and female lineages (haplogroups) in Mongoloid groups of East Asia, the paternal lineages are made up by two haplogroups: 1) "Australoid" lineage C3 prevailing in modern Altai nations (Turks, Mongols, Tunguz), and 2) technically speaking "Europoid" lineage NO that came to East Asia from Middle East 30-40 000 years ago and is distantly related to lineages of European Cro-Magnons. Somewhere in South-East Asia it soon diverged into two separate branches N and O. While N is now the main paternal lineage of Uralic and Tchukotko-Kamtchatkan groups, O dominates in Mongoloids from South-East Asia (Chinese, Vietnamese etc.) So, a Mongoloid race is made up by two independent human lineages? How is it possible? The answer lies in maternal (mtDNA) haplogroups. Here you can detect a significant maternal gene flow from the Altaian group ("C3 clan") to the "N-clan" and "O-clan". But curiously, not the other way (at least not until historical times). This well agrees with the distribution of the most extreme traits of the Mongoloid race (epicanthus, flat face, rectangular body build etc.): they especially dominate in Altaian nations, i.e. in the area where the C3-clan developed. From this I can deduce a following scenario:
China was largely depopulated by Homo erectus ca. 100 000 BP due to extreme climatic conditions and the first human remains that reappear in this area are dated to ca. 40 000 BP. They belong to Homo sapiens. We know that some Homo sapiens (Paleoaustraloid groups) may have inhabited South Asia as early as 60 000 years ago, but they probably didn't go much further to the north. The migration to China that started 40 000 BP is more probably tied with (Paleo)europoid hunters bearing the Y-haplogroup NO, who mightily expanded to various parts of Eurasia somewhere from Iran. The NO haplogroup perhaps travelled through India and diverged into N and O somewhere in southern China or northern Indochina. While O occupied south-eastern China, N dwelled between Indochina and northern China. At the same time, a group of Australoids bearing the Y-haplogroup C3 suddenly appears in the area of the Lake Baikal. I could speculate that they may have been pushed there by the NO-people, but it would be really only a speculation. However, they obviously got there independently, because they didn't "borrow" any maternal haplogroups accompanying the paternal haplogroup NO. And these two human groups were not the only ones in that area: the ancestors of Ainu bearing Y-haplogroup D (otherwise quite a mysterious male lineage that is present in Australoid-looking Andamanese aboriginals) and "Europoid" maternal lineage N9, occupied northern China and the Amur region. It is possible that these Proto-Ainus joined some Paleoeuropoid groups during their way through Indochina, took their women and then headed together with them north.
At the top of the Ice Age (20 000 years BP), the Australoids around the Lake Baikal quickly developed into a highly cold-adapted human group, while the Europoid-looking humans bearing N and O dwelled in China. The Proto-Ainu diverged into several smaller groups, from which the most important stayed isolated on the Japanese Archipelago and developed into an independent, also a highly cold-adapted race with mixed Australoid-Europoid features.
Ca. 15-20 000 years BP, the basic features of the Mongoloid phenotype must have been already present in the Paleomongoloid hunters of the Lake Baikal region. We can deduce it from the fact that Paleoindians heading from the Altai region mixed with Paleomongoloid women and brought some of these Mongoloid features with them to America. With the coming of warming, the C3-clan probably started an expansion to Siberia. Ca. 14 000 years ago, a part of the N-people from northern China expanded north to Siberia, too, and heavily mixed with these (Paleo)mongoloids - which is obvious from their predominance of Altaian maternal lineages. The flow of Mongoloid maternal genes must have continued further to the south and touched even the O-clan in south-eastern China. It was certainly after the end of the Ice Age, because the ancestors of Polynesians, isolated on Taiwan due to the rise of sea level, were only marginally affected by it, if at all (their paternal lineages consist of O and a Melanesian branch of C, but their mtDNA is overwhelmingly B4, i.e. a haplogroup originally accompanying O). Hence they still preserve a phenotype that resembles the original "European-looking" population of paleolithic China. The same is valid in the case of the Ainu in Japan. Everybody else in East Asia was "Mongolized". So, without any exaggeration, modern Chinese are actually Europoids, who "married" into the Mongoloid race. Why this racial type had so much success, that's another question. Centrum99 03:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
-- JWB 19:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added a picture that illustrates the object in question. It is clearly stated that it is from 1914, and the article states it's outdated. What's wrong with that? Funkynusayri 01:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Ahum? Funkynusayri 01:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
See the Negroid talk page. Image in question is on the right. Funkynusayri 02:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to know who the Mangune and Katjinz are/were. I know Shiba are Xibe, Giljak are Nivkh, and Golde probably the Nanai. But those I really would like to know.
Dr. Clyde Ahmed Winters, a degreed anthropologist, says Dravidians are Mongoloids, but User:Paul Barlow keep removing the citation. User:Paul Barlow says that he is not an anthropologist, but, in actuality, he has a graduate degree in anthropology and history. Although the citation I gave was from his website, he has published many books, so self-publishing not a problem. If I have to buy his books, then I will buy them. His theories are not fringe theories; they are published and peer-reviewed in Dravidian Journels. The theory that Dravidians are Africoid is quite notable and shared by Hadwa Dom, Robert Strongrivers, John Moore, Runoko Rashidi and Cheikh Anta Diop. After my enumeration of his qualifications, he appears to be a reliable source. It may be unclear on Winters' website whether he intended Dravidians to be Mongoloid or not, but it will become clearer when I buy his book. I feel that he must consider them to be Africoid, but by calling them the "Mongoloid Dravidians of India" and distinguishing them from "modern Mongoloids" he appears to consider them Mongoloids as well.---- Dark Tea © 06:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Runoko Rashidi is a well-known Afrocentric racialist who has written many papers on race. He claims that Mongoloids originated from Australoids by some unknown process when Australoids arrived in Northeast Asia. User:JWB removed this citation with the edit summary that it had no "basis" and was almost devoid of content. What can I say? The statement I added clearly had a basis, because it was cited to Rashidi. It also clearly had content. The accusation that it had no content is nonsensical. Rashidi is an important person here because he is a black man and represents a Afrocentric world view. He claims that Western (white) anthropologists have consistently biased their publications to produce a Eurocentric world view on race. To counter systematic bias on Wikipedia, his Afrocentric views are needed to balance what he believes to be Eurocentrism in anthropology.--- Dark Tea © 20:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
“ | Because of the ethnic features of many yellow peoples (full lips, platyrrhinia, and prognathism), Diop has suggested the possibility of the Mongolian types originating from a mixture of Blacks and Whites:... it has been observed that wherever there are yellow-skinned peoples, one still finds pockets of Black and Whites who seem to be the residual elements of that race. | ” |
Just a note, the hypothesis that haplogroup M is "Australoid" is incorrect. In fact haplogroup N seems the predominant lineage among Australian Aboriginals, making them more related to Europeans via mtDNA lineages. Of main concern was the presence, in high frequencies, of macrohaplogroup N basal lineages in aboriginal Australians contrasting with its paucity in India and its absence in PNG. If, as we proposed, N marks the northern route, how to explain its absence in southeast Asia and PNG, its natural path to Australia? On the other hand, if N was carried along with M in all routes how to explain its paucity in India and its absence in southeast Asia? Not to mention the lack of basal M in western Eurasia. [9]. Muntuwandi 05:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
“ | We understand that the data in support of our hypothesis are meager at best. However, it explains the currently observed geographic patterns of mtDNA variation fairly well. Of course, recurring to genetic drift and lineage extinctions other stories may also fit the present mtDNA phylogeography. In any case, it is indispensable that any hypothesis can be testable. | ” |
As it is lost in the Rashidi section above, I would like to call attention to the reference DT deleted from the article. It is actual physical anthropology work, it abundantly cites and discusses recent and earlier work in this field, it analyzes actual data, it gives valuable information about the little-known timing and locations of the advent of the Mongoloid type, it is in turn cited by notable scientists in this and related fields like Chris Stringer; in short, it is everything that the politicized, unsupported, out-of-field statements DT replaced it with are not. It deserves a thorough reading and discussion. Google Scholar: the Peter Brown paper, and later papers referencing it -- JWB 05:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
DT, thanks for adding back a reference to Brown. However, I think the quote you used has the opposite meaning of what you gave it. In page 17 of the pdf (page number 120 on page) of Brown99, Brown brings up the "proto-Mongoloid" suggestion, which apparently he has heard from others, and comments only "This is a far more difficult issue as no one knows what a “protoMongoloid” would look like." He is not supporting the suggestion and is skeptical of it. Immediately afterwards, he also denies that Liujiang / Upper Cave / Minatogawa are Australoid, and names Coon as one who put forward the Australoid suggestion. On the next page he brings up the possibility that diachronic change could be used to extrapolate what "protoMongoloids" might look like, but he evaluates this possibility negatively too because of the great discontinuity between Lj / UC / Mg and modern East Asians.
I will try to summarize what Brown actually concludes:
-- JWB 08:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The editors disputing this section are requested to give the article 24 hours and to work toward a compromise or to seek an RfC. Please take the time to cool off and stop edit warring. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
"...This latter characteristic has been suggested to be an adaptation to colder climate. Another observation is the divergence of gynomorphism and andromorphism is of lesser importance among Mongoloids in comparison to other ethnic groups, generally speaking."
I must vehemently disagree. Sexual dymorphism can be very strong among Asian populations, especially those from the colder or drier climates. Le Anh-Huy ( talk) 09:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be referenced, and should go if nobody can reference it soon. -- JWB ( talk) 18:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Forensic anthropologist Caroline Wilkenson says Mongoloids feature "absent browridges". [1] Moreover, Mongoloid skulls are the most gracile in the human family. It is believed that the Mongoloid skull type is a very recent evolutionary development. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.61.183 ( talk) 17:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Mongoloids are distinguished by their non-projecting noses, flat faces formed by forward projecting cheekbones, round eye orbits, shovel-shaped incisors, and complex cranial sutures, flattened chins, elliptic dental archs and brachycephalic skulls. They also possess wormian bones at a higher frequency than other ethnic groups. With some few exceptions, they are also known to maintain oblique palpebral fissures in adulthood, also known as epicanthal folds; although this trait is universally present in all humans during some period of their development, epicanthal folds usually disappear when the bridge of the nose begins to elevate among individuals of other races. The vast majority of Mongoloids have straight black hair, dark brown eyes, and the skin colour may vary between very pale to dark brown, though mostly yellowish. Mongoloids also are characterized by an absence or thinly distributed facial and body hair, and lesser sweat glands. The width between the eyes is greater in Mongoloids and they have the least mandible projection. Far East Asians tend to have shorter limbs relative to their torso length than South East Asians, although they tend to have bigger bodies.[29] Traits may vary, because of climatic variance and racial admixture within certain groups.
"...creatures so incontrovertibly ugly and repulsive as the ordinary specimens of the Mongolian race..." --Is this really necessary??
The article sited does not support what the paragraph says. Southern mongoloids are NOT south east asian. South East Asians are mainly Austronesia (Dravidian migration). Of course many have intermarried with Mongoloids ie. Chinese traders. Intranetusa 20:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
"Other nomenclatures were proposed, such as "Mesochroi",[8] but Mongoloid was widely adopted"
Wisely? This is blatantly opinionated!
--That was funny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.169.163 ( talk) 20:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
mongoloids are the peoples originating from mongolia. duh. information technology wasn't too advanced in the 19th c, sure, and concepts of racial heritage were different then from what we enjoy today, so you can't exactly blame people like the author of _Observations on the Ethnic Classification of Idiots_ for advancing anti-asian ideas, but their tacky and antiquated racism should at best be a subheading in the discussion of peoples of mongolian heritage. and downs syndrome? wtf?
This article needs to be improved like the Negroid article, or alternately merged into Asian (people) like Caucasoid was. I have removed some unreliable internet sources(Geocities kook websites used as references by certain editors), but the other internet sources cited in the article need to be replaced. The entire article seems to be reflecting the opinion of one editor. - Pravit 18:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This section needs some clean up. First, southern mongoloids designates not only Filipinos, Malays and Indonesian but southern Chinese, Thais, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Burmese and most tribes in Southeast Asian and Eastern India. I don't think the add about Vietnamese being of east Asian origin is needed because the section is not about southeast Asia but southern mongoloid. Two completely different things. Mediterranean Caucasoid don't only include Mediterraneans but also Arabians and Indians. Its not about location. CanCanDuo 22:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) says that the term most used by the group itself should be used to name articles. A Yahoo search showed that the search term "Mongoloid people" got 26,700 hits while "Mongoloid race" got 2,810 hits. Alternatively, a google search for the term "Mongoloid people" got 964 hits while "Mongoloid race" got 17,400 hits. If these are summed together, then the search term "Mongoloid people" gets a total of 27,664 while "Mongoloid race" gets a total of 20,210 hits. Since the term "Mongoloid people" is 37% more frequently used than "Mongoloid race", this article's name should be changed to "Mongoloid people".---- Dark Tea 14:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Many of the hits for "Mongoloid people" are not for the race as a whole, but individual peoples with Mongoloid characteristics. "Mongoloid peoples" gets an almost equal number of hits (981 vs. 1010) and all of those are talking about one or more of a number of peoples rather than the race as a unit. If combined, a majority of references are to the idea of multiple peoples.
Mongoloid is not a demonym that national groups apply to themselves. It is an anthropological term. "Mongoloid race" is in line with the anthropological use. Arguably, most older anthropological work is steeped in assumptions of European superiority, as well as plain errors, but this is a problem of the work itself, and anachronistically substituting nonequivalent current terminology does not get rid of it, but just confuses the issue. If anything, updating older racist work with modern terminology may legitimize it. -- JWB 20:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Debate moved from Japheth page
Bindon claims Coon believed in racial superiority, making Coon not WP:RS. According to Bindon, the expert, Coon didn't believe in a possibility of superiority; Coon definitely believed some races were superior to others. Moreover, Coon believed in real or de facto if you will racial differences, ordering races in a hierarchy by these differences. Due to Coon believing in racial supremacy, he is not WP:RS which excludes racist sources in articles that are not about their person.---- Dark Tea 02:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
This article certainly needs a cleanup. The seemingly pathological marking of many wholly uncontroversial statements as potential OR is tiresome, and I would plead for common sense here. One important note regarding the controversy above. It has been repeatedly claimed by DT that Carleton Coon invented the term, and that therefore if some significant aspects of Coon's theories are invalidated then the term is too. I think that's a non sequitor in any case, but having quickly looked at the history of the term, it seems to date back at least to Thomas Huxley, long, long before Coon, and is discussed in literature of the 1880s. An article in the 1886 vol of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland (p.304) proposes renaming "Professor Huxley's Mongoloid division" as the "Mesochroic" race (that one never caught on, needless to say). Paul B 13:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
As of May 22, Dark Tea has removed almost all physical anthropology information from the article and removed physical anthropology terms as jargon, even something as commonly known as epicanthic fold.
As I see it, the subject of this article is the technical term used in anthropology, and similarly technical terms normally used with it are not at all out of place.
As Dark Tea and others have pointed out, Mongoloid is inappropriate and offensive when applied to race as a social or political phenomenon. This is all the more reason for this article to stick to the technical use of the term, and mention race in the social sense only to make clear it is out of scope, referring inquiry to the appropriate articles on race in the social sense. Instead, the article seems to be moving in the opposite direction, becoming a short and dumbed-down article on race in general.
Rather then immediately reverting, I would like to discuss and come to an agreement here. -- JWB 18:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Now you are arguing that skeletal data belongs in Forensic facial reconstruction, not here.
The "Mongoloid" concept is almost entirely about physical anthropology, primarily skeletal data, in the late 19th and early to mid 20th centuries. It is not about present-day ethnic groups, as explicitly stated in the article and apparently agreed by all. It is not about racial concepts prior to the late 19th century, which were discussed using different terms.
You repeatedly expunge almost all actual data from the article. If you feel documentation of the concept is inappropriate, the proper thing to do is to AfD the article, instead of unilateral creeping deletion. -- JWB 06:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Although the indigenous peoples of the Americas are somewhat distinct from East and Southeast Asian mongoloids, the term mongoloid has been used to describe the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Why hasn't this been mentioned? Zachorious 23:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not the indigenous peoples of the Americas are mongoloid or not, it should at least be mentioned that many classifications to lump the natives of America with the rest of the Mongoloid race. And then afterwards you can type a criticism to the classification system. Zachorious 05:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not an expert on the matter, but i would certainly think common sense suggests that American Natives may and have been classified as Asiatic/ Mongoloid. They migrated from eastern Asia to America only 15,000 years ago, well after Mogoloids differentiated into such. Secondly, we can clearly see Asiatic features in their phenotype. ANy genetic differences between modern Asians and Native Americans can be attributed to founder and bottle-neck effects Hxseek ( talk) 08:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Since the current prevailing theory still suggests that The American Natives originated from East asia/ Siberia, therefore by definition they are Mongoloid ! !
-- 69.216.130.45 ( talk) 20:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC) I don't disagree that Native Americans should be considered their own race (in fact, recent evidence points to a possible migration from Western Europe when Europe was connected to North America via a land-bridge). But wikipedia is about history as well, and it needs to be mentioned that classification systems in the past, Amerindians were grouped under the "Mongoloid" classification with East/Southeast Asians. And since know one has made an effort yet to mention this, I will do so. Zachorious 00:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I have said this in the other articles, eg Negroes and Caucasians
THe articles are frustrating and undermine the larning process. THe whole 'PC' approach to learning these days is wrong
I want to read about Mongoloid peoples origin, population and diversity. The article should focus on this. Yes by all means identify the short-comings of such a rigid classification. But it should not detract from the quality of the article.
Instead this article craps on about definitions, and ends up not saying anything.
The article should be written by a real author and not some self-righteous hippie. I know there is a move away from racial classification after WWII, and race has been used to discriminate people. But this doesn;t mean that we should just INVENT an idea that race doesn;t exist when it obviously does
First, when you look at male and female lineages (haplogroups) in Mongoloid groups of East Asia, the paternal lineages are made up by two haplogroups: 1) "Australoid" lineage C3 prevailing in modern Altai nations (Turks, Mongols, Tunguz), and 2) technically speaking "Europoid" lineage NO that came to East Asia from Middle East 30-40 000 years ago and is distantly related to lineages of European Cro-Magnons. Somewhere in South-East Asia it soon diverged into two separate branches N and O. While N is now the main paternal lineage of Uralic and Tchukotko-Kamtchatkan groups, O dominates in Mongoloids from South-East Asia (Chinese, Vietnamese etc.) So, a Mongoloid race is made up by two independent human lineages? How is it possible? The answer lies in maternal (mtDNA) haplogroups. Here you can detect a significant maternal gene flow from the Altaian group ("C3 clan") to the "N-clan" and "O-clan". But curiously, not the other way (at least not until historical times). This well agrees with the distribution of the most extreme traits of the Mongoloid race (epicanthus, flat face, rectangular body build etc.): they especially dominate in Altaian nations, i.e. in the area where the C3-clan developed. From this I can deduce a following scenario:
China was largely depopulated by Homo erectus ca. 100 000 BP due to extreme climatic conditions and the first human remains that reappear in this area are dated to ca. 40 000 BP. They belong to Homo sapiens. We know that some Homo sapiens (Paleoaustraloid groups) may have inhabited South Asia as early as 60 000 years ago, but they probably didn't go much further to the north. The migration to China that started 40 000 BP is more probably tied with (Paleo)europoid hunters bearing the Y-haplogroup NO, who mightily expanded to various parts of Eurasia somewhere from Iran. The NO haplogroup perhaps travelled through India and diverged into N and O somewhere in southern China or northern Indochina. While O occupied south-eastern China, N dwelled between Indochina and northern China. At the same time, a group of Australoids bearing the Y-haplogroup C3 suddenly appears in the area of the Lake Baikal. I could speculate that they may have been pushed there by the NO-people, but it would be really only a speculation. However, they obviously got there independently, because they didn't "borrow" any maternal haplogroups accompanying the paternal haplogroup NO. And these two human groups were not the only ones in that area: the ancestors of Ainu bearing Y-haplogroup D (otherwise quite a mysterious male lineage that is present in Australoid-looking Andamanese aboriginals) and "Europoid" maternal lineage N9, occupied northern China and the Amur region. It is possible that these Proto-Ainus joined some Paleoeuropoid groups during their way through Indochina, took their women and then headed together with them north.
At the top of the Ice Age (20 000 years BP), the Australoids around the Lake Baikal quickly developed into a highly cold-adapted human group, while the Europoid-looking humans bearing N and O dwelled in China. The Proto-Ainu diverged into several smaller groups, from which the most important stayed isolated on the Japanese Archipelago and developed into an independent, also a highly cold-adapted race with mixed Australoid-Europoid features.
Ca. 15-20 000 years BP, the basic features of the Mongoloid phenotype must have been already present in the Paleomongoloid hunters of the Lake Baikal region. We can deduce it from the fact that Paleoindians heading from the Altai region mixed with Paleomongoloid women and brought some of these Mongoloid features with them to America. With the coming of warming, the C3-clan probably started an expansion to Siberia. Ca. 14 000 years ago, a part of the N-people from northern China expanded north to Siberia, too, and heavily mixed with these (Paleo)mongoloids - which is obvious from their predominance of Altaian maternal lineages. The flow of Mongoloid maternal genes must have continued further to the south and touched even the O-clan in south-eastern China. It was certainly after the end of the Ice Age, because the ancestors of Polynesians, isolated on Taiwan due to the rise of sea level, were only marginally affected by it, if at all (their paternal lineages consist of O and a Melanesian branch of C, but their mtDNA is overwhelmingly B4, i.e. a haplogroup originally accompanying O). Hence they still preserve a phenotype that resembles the original "European-looking" population of paleolithic China. The same is valid in the case of the Ainu in Japan. Everybody else in East Asia was "Mongolized". So, without any exaggeration, modern Chinese are actually Europoids, who "married" into the Mongoloid race. Why this racial type had so much success, that's another question. Centrum99 03:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
-- JWB 19:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added a picture that illustrates the object in question. It is clearly stated that it is from 1914, and the article states it's outdated. What's wrong with that? Funkynusayri 01:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Ahum? Funkynusayri 01:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
See the Negroid talk page. Image in question is on the right. Funkynusayri 02:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to know who the Mangune and Katjinz are/were. I know Shiba are Xibe, Giljak are Nivkh, and Golde probably the Nanai. But those I really would like to know.
Dr. Clyde Ahmed Winters, a degreed anthropologist, says Dravidians are Mongoloids, but User:Paul Barlow keep removing the citation. User:Paul Barlow says that he is not an anthropologist, but, in actuality, he has a graduate degree in anthropology and history. Although the citation I gave was from his website, he has published many books, so self-publishing not a problem. If I have to buy his books, then I will buy them. His theories are not fringe theories; they are published and peer-reviewed in Dravidian Journels. The theory that Dravidians are Africoid is quite notable and shared by Hadwa Dom, Robert Strongrivers, John Moore, Runoko Rashidi and Cheikh Anta Diop. After my enumeration of his qualifications, he appears to be a reliable source. It may be unclear on Winters' website whether he intended Dravidians to be Mongoloid or not, but it will become clearer when I buy his book. I feel that he must consider them to be Africoid, but by calling them the "Mongoloid Dravidians of India" and distinguishing them from "modern Mongoloids" he appears to consider them Mongoloids as well.---- Dark Tea © 06:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Runoko Rashidi is a well-known Afrocentric racialist who has written many papers on race. He claims that Mongoloids originated from Australoids by some unknown process when Australoids arrived in Northeast Asia. User:JWB removed this citation with the edit summary that it had no "basis" and was almost devoid of content. What can I say? The statement I added clearly had a basis, because it was cited to Rashidi. It also clearly had content. The accusation that it had no content is nonsensical. Rashidi is an important person here because he is a black man and represents a Afrocentric world view. He claims that Western (white) anthropologists have consistently biased their publications to produce a Eurocentric world view on race. To counter systematic bias on Wikipedia, his Afrocentric views are needed to balance what he believes to be Eurocentrism in anthropology.--- Dark Tea © 20:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
“ | Because of the ethnic features of many yellow peoples (full lips, platyrrhinia, and prognathism), Diop has suggested the possibility of the Mongolian types originating from a mixture of Blacks and Whites:... it has been observed that wherever there are yellow-skinned peoples, one still finds pockets of Black and Whites who seem to be the residual elements of that race. | ” |
Just a note, the hypothesis that haplogroup M is "Australoid" is incorrect. In fact haplogroup N seems the predominant lineage among Australian Aboriginals, making them more related to Europeans via mtDNA lineages. Of main concern was the presence, in high frequencies, of macrohaplogroup N basal lineages in aboriginal Australians contrasting with its paucity in India and its absence in PNG. If, as we proposed, N marks the northern route, how to explain its absence in southeast Asia and PNG, its natural path to Australia? On the other hand, if N was carried along with M in all routes how to explain its paucity in India and its absence in southeast Asia? Not to mention the lack of basal M in western Eurasia. [9]. Muntuwandi 05:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
“ | We understand that the data in support of our hypothesis are meager at best. However, it explains the currently observed geographic patterns of mtDNA variation fairly well. Of course, recurring to genetic drift and lineage extinctions other stories may also fit the present mtDNA phylogeography. In any case, it is indispensable that any hypothesis can be testable. | ” |
As it is lost in the Rashidi section above, I would like to call attention to the reference DT deleted from the article. It is actual physical anthropology work, it abundantly cites and discusses recent and earlier work in this field, it analyzes actual data, it gives valuable information about the little-known timing and locations of the advent of the Mongoloid type, it is in turn cited by notable scientists in this and related fields like Chris Stringer; in short, it is everything that the politicized, unsupported, out-of-field statements DT replaced it with are not. It deserves a thorough reading and discussion. Google Scholar: the Peter Brown paper, and later papers referencing it -- JWB 05:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
DT, thanks for adding back a reference to Brown. However, I think the quote you used has the opposite meaning of what you gave it. In page 17 of the pdf (page number 120 on page) of Brown99, Brown brings up the "proto-Mongoloid" suggestion, which apparently he has heard from others, and comments only "This is a far more difficult issue as no one knows what a “protoMongoloid” would look like." He is not supporting the suggestion and is skeptical of it. Immediately afterwards, he also denies that Liujiang / Upper Cave / Minatogawa are Australoid, and names Coon as one who put forward the Australoid suggestion. On the next page he brings up the possibility that diachronic change could be used to extrapolate what "protoMongoloids" might look like, but he evaluates this possibility negatively too because of the great discontinuity between Lj / UC / Mg and modern East Asians.
I will try to summarize what Brown actually concludes:
-- JWB 08:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The editors disputing this section are requested to give the article 24 hours and to work toward a compromise or to seek an RfC. Please take the time to cool off and stop edit warring. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
"...This latter characteristic has been suggested to be an adaptation to colder climate. Another observation is the divergence of gynomorphism and andromorphism is of lesser importance among Mongoloids in comparison to other ethnic groups, generally speaking."
I must vehemently disagree. Sexual dymorphism can be very strong among Asian populations, especially those from the colder or drier climates. Le Anh-Huy ( talk) 09:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be referenced, and should go if nobody can reference it soon. -- JWB ( talk) 18:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)