Re: [tied] irrelevence of race
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@h...> wrote:
> I read somewhere that some Native American tribes were highly
> specialized (that would be genetically, you need enzymes
> to digest) with respect to the food they ate, eg. including astart
> particular species of maize. And once they go off that food and
> on European food they go pop and get overweight, as many of themare
> today. The only similar European example I can think of is thewas
> inverse correlation between the length of time since agriculture
> introduced and the incidence of gluten intolerance in thepopulation.
I believe lactose tolerance in adults is another good example.
> Also, it occured to me once, a type of resistance built in onegroup
> of people might work enzyme-wise, thus genetically, in differentA good point. There have been several good points re population
> ways, if the groups were separate at the time they were exposed to
> this new environmental factor. Which means that once they cross-
> breed, even if both groups are resistant to a certain type
> of 'potential poison', their offspring might not be (since not all
> the genes required for the set of enzymes might have been
genetics raised in the responses to the original question, but I
think we should also bear in mind that genetic variation alone does
not equate to the concept of racial types alluded to in that
question. That concept relates specifically to genes which affect
external appearance, and it is good to remember that there does not
have to be a close correlation between the transmission of such genes
and the transmission of genes for beneficial metabolic traits or
disease resistance (unless the two sets of genes coincidently lie
very close together on a chromosome, or if the beneficial trait also
directly influences appearance too, e.g. light pigmentation to
enhance vitamin D production).
>Why do some still think Indo-European Speakers="Caucasians". I stillThis is somewhat of a moot point. The use of the term "Caucasian" as
>come across this way of thinking in books, and it seems many still make
a racial designation is completely meaningless and unscientific (despite
its incessant use on American news, to my chagrin). In order to use it
in an educated way, we must define accurately what "Caucasian" means.
Well, if you've ever tried to narrow down what it means, you finally have
to give up.
All of us come from such diverse backgrounds that any racial term is
evidently without logic. These terms are as subjective as colour terms.
If you ask ten people what "indigo" looks like, you'll get ten different
If we want to know what the IEs might have looked like on a whole,
again, we can't expect a singular group of people. Archaeology
shows that the suspected area and timeframe of the Indo-European
speaking population contained a fairly diverse group of people. Some
of a Mediterranean type, others more related to Northern Europe.
And, of course, don't forget the "Middle-Eastern" genes that entered
Europe during the Neolithic (cf. Cavalli-Sforza). The XinJiang mummies
whose ancestry has been traced back to the Black Sea would suggest
that there were probably some IE speakers that were fair. But doubtful
that they all were. The Eastern Mediterranean was highly cosmopolitan
since the neolithic.
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.