Apparently all races can be classified as negro, caucasian or mongoloid.  Aborigines, like Maoris, Native Americans etc are descended from oriental people originally and these are generally known as new world mongoloids. But considering the fact that the aborigines have existed for 30 000 years and don't have mongoloid characteristics, which of the categories should they be in?
216304
classifying human beings in races is stupid and not scientific. the three main groups of negro, caucasian and mongoloids were used by anthropologists anciently but have no longer any scientific value. some countries adopt them as a form of description of their citizens but its not correct to talk about "races". in fact a central european, looking "caucasian", might have a greater genetic affinity (similar DNA) with a black african that, say, with another central european of celtic origin. this even if the looks would suggest the opposite. \nanyways, following the classification u suggest, australian aborigenes, together with melanesians, would be classified as "negro", maoris as "mongoloid", and polynesians as "caucasian"...this shows how bad  and wrong the classification is.
547259
All humans  have 23 chromosome pairs genetically, you will not see any difference looking at chromosomes of most different people under a microscope. All people belong to one biological species: Homo sapiens. But certain gene sequencies in DNA (and even in mitochondrial RNA of bones) may be more spread among one than another, their investigation is used as a historical method to determine movements and level of isolation/contacts of different groups of people. \n\nWikipedia describes origin:\nAccording to current scientific knowledge, human beings arrived by sea or by a land bridge that formerly connected North America with Asia. Most (if not all) of those indigenous peoples descended from peoples living in Siberia. They entered North America more than 16,000 years ago and diversified into hundreds of culturally distinct nations and tribes.[1]\n\nSeveral genetic surveys have indicated clear affinities between present-day indigenous American populations and peoples of Siberia. According to Ilya Zakharov of Moscow's Vavilov Institute of General Genetics, the Northern Native Americans are genetically related to the Tuvans, a Turkic group of people located in the Tuva Republic at the southwestern edge of Siberia. [7]\n...\nThe general consensus of such studies is that at least three separate migrations from Siberia to the Americas are highly likely to have occurred:\n\nThe first wave came into a land populated by the large mammals of the late Pleistocene, including mammoths, horses, giant sloths, and woolly rhinoceroses. The Clovis culture would be a manifestation of that migration, and the Folsom culture, based on the hunting of bison, would have developed from it. This wave eventually spread over the entire hemisphere, as far south as Tierra del Fuego, and became the inhabitants of central to eastern North America and most if not all of Central and South America. \nThe second migration brought the ancestors of the Na-Dene peoples. They lived in Alaska and western Canada, but some migrated as far south as the Pacific Northwestern U.S. and the American Southwest, and would be ancestral to the Dene, Apaches and Navajos. \nThe third wave brought the ancestors of the Eskimos (Inuit) and the Aleuts. They may have come by sea over the Bering Strait, after the land bridge had disappeared. \nIn recent years, molecular genetics studies have suggested as many as four distinct migrations from Asia. These studies also provide surprising evidence of smaller-scale, contemporaneous migrations from Europe, possibly by peoples who had adopted a lifestyle resembling that of the Inuit and Yupiks during the last ice age."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Indians\n\nAsian Indians have little to do with people who were ancestors of American Indians. These Siberian peoples are attributed by appearance to Mongoloids - I do not like the term "Mongoloid race" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloid
530417
I think that is a very good question,I think that society as a whole has an incredible itch to categorize everything into neat easily classified little piles. There are so many different European creeds that have all blended together by now that would make SPECIFICALLY classifying anyone would be a huge mouth full. My best friend would have to say that she is an Irish-Scotch-Welsh-German and maybe some Italian thrown on for spice American, but she has had the privilege of at least knowing where her families came from, and can , rightly so, be proud of what her makes her who SHE is. African Americans, for the most part are held at a huge disadvantage in this respect. Most DON"T know where they hail from except for a few speculative hundred years, and maybe have an understandable need to have a claim on SOMEPLACE to reconnect with their roots. Everyone wants to know where they come from and Africa is at least a common motherland.                                                    I have been very lucky as a Mexican AMERICAN to be able to have access to that part of my culture close at hand, but it doesn't define me as a whole. I do speak spanish but I still think that English should be learned when you move here. ( What is so difficult in being able to speak more then just ONE language people!!! This is something to be proud of!! Other countries EXPECT thier students to MASTER more then one before they can graduate from school!!Since when should education be shunned???) I consider myself to be an American above all other census classifications, and my friends would say " goofball dork" if asked about me. I believe people all ALL races should be proud of who they are and anyway if we were to be invaded by any one of the many countries that hate us, African American, Asian American, European American, or whatever would still be considerd AMERICAN only. They wouldn't care.  ( BTW, you ARE German American, and it is a sad thing that untill WW II most Germans in the US had been speaking German for many generations untill they were unfairly made to feel ashamed about it, but that's govermant for ya)
434993
It doesn't make sense to say the oldest person found was "caucasoid" because racial differences didn't start to appear before people migrated to different continents. The colour of the skin of the oldest humans I doubt if scientists could ever determine because all they have is bones. I really don't see why it matters what colour their skin was. Probably dark because they had to survive in the hot sun. There is absolutely no dispute that humans began in Africa.
26879
Seems like they were around during the time of Ghengis Khan (c. 1162–August 18, 1227) but are inhabited by more than just mongolian decendents.. their customs are noted as mostly japanese, vietnamese, and indonesian.  Only vietnam was conquered by the Mongols but not until a little after Ghengis Khan's death.  I'd imagine there is some of his blood running around in the marianas islands but probably seldom and rare.  Europe did not discover the islands until the 16th century when Ferdinand Magellan of Spain landed there (and had a little bit of ethnic conflict too).  Asian History is hard to come by unless it is a european script since the majority of history we know today as a society (especially in the States) is based on european accounts.
377811
"Natives" of this country refer to themselves as OP's (original people). This country wasn't named America by them. They are labeled by their being here first. As far as the descriptions that you gave you used Asian as an ethnic description but used a color as a description for African American. Why? Also the Op's have different genetic makeups just like every other ethnic group. I know African Americans who have slanted eyes and they are not mixed race. The darker skinned Natives are obviously from the hotter regions just like darker skinned caucasians and African Americans and any other race who live there. The colder the climate year round the paler the skin tone.
260951
Scholars have advocated various theories about the origin of the Ainu people. The theories include the Caucasoid (Caucasian) Theory, the Mongoloid Theory, the Oceania Race Theory, the Old Asian Race Theory, and the Solitary Race Theory. Some scholars have recently advocated the following hypothesis into which the Mongoloid Theory has developed. Mongoloid peoples once were of two types : Southern Mongoloid and Northern Mongoloid. Before the Jomon Period (several tens of thousands of years ago), the Southern Mongoloid started moving northward and settled the Japanese archipelago, including Okinawa, over a long period of time. Later, the Southern Mongoloid played a major role in the Jomon Period throughout Japan. However, in the Yayoi and Tumulus Periods, the Northern Mongoloid came across the sea to Japan in great numbers. The ethnic Japanese (non-Ainu) are the people who have evolved rapidly through the strong influences of these migratory processes. On the other hand, the Ainu in Hokkaido and the Tohoku region and the Ryukyu people in Okinawa are the ones who have hardly affected by this process.\n\nThe Ainu people originally did not have an alphabet. Therefore, they have orally transmitted literature such as tales, Iegends, experiences, and morals for everyday life from generation to generation.\n\n" Yukar" are the tales of heroes. They are also called "yayerap," "sakorpe," or "haw" in some areas. Yukar are called "hawki" in Sakhalin. The hero is an orphan boy called by various names, including "Poiyaunpe," "Pon-shinutapkaunkur," "Pon-otasamunkur," and " Yayresupo," depending on the area. The narrator of yukar sits at the fireside and recites the adventure stories of this boy all night, beating the fireside with a stick called "repni. "\nThe oral literature of the Ainu is not only "recitative" as described above, but also "narrative uepeker " which is usually translated as, "an old tale," is called "tuitak" in some areas and "uchashkuma" in Sakhalin. Although uepeker is translated as an old tale, it is not a fictitious one but a real one with experiences of those who lived in olden times. Tales called "ikopepka" or "upashkuma" more closely resemble legends than do those called "old tale."\n\n" Yaysama" is oral literature in which a woman sings an impromptu song of her emotions. Most words have been handed down from generation to generation. This is why it can be said to belong to oral literature.\n\n" Upopo" is a festival song sung by women who sit in a circle, beating the lid of a container called "shintoko." The words are not long and are sung repeatedly in a round or a chorus.
265765
Why don't you Yahoo Search or Google this because I don't the average person knows what you're getting at. One thing I'm not going to do is to talk about different races, because everyone is the same inside only a little different\noutside. Do you compretend?
355451
lebanese are classified between caucasian and mongoloid so there is a possibility of blond hair and blue eyes. probably not in a pure lebanese person though.
552265
At that time Hispanics were considered white.  The only separate divisions were black or Japanese (served in Europe only).\n\nDon't bother looking any more because you won't find an answer.  The lack of an Answer IS your answer....
56408
neither africa nor asia are racially homogenous.  look at the vast differences between indians, arabs, and chinese in asia and pygmys, berbers, and black africans in africa.  there is huge variation.\n\nrace is not genetically significant.  people from the same race often show more genetic differences amongst themselves than they do with other races.  its just that we see skin and hair color predominantly and make the false assumption that these must be important indicators of genetics.  i don't know what caused differing hair and eye colors to evolve, but i am certain that these are very superficial traits which actually would have virtually nothing to do with whether the people are racially or genetically homogenous.
309481
By definition, there cannot be a "smarter race" amongs humans, and that is because races DO NOT EXIST in the human species. The differences in the genetic makeup of individuals amongst the human species is just SO small that people cannot be truly classified under "Races", like for example with dogs. It is said that there is a chance that you are genetically more similar to a black person than you might be to another white person. And it is also thought that most "Racial" traits are but adaptation to different environments. Thus, it could be inferred that if Black people stayed on a cold weather, without much son for long enough time, their descendants would eventually be whiter with each passing generation.
43738
Homogeneous just means the same, or uniform throughout.  It doesn't necessarily apply to race.  You can certainly have a genetically homogeneous population, but that is a much higher level of sameness than a racially homogeneous population.  Within any racial group there is a huge amount of genetic variability.  \n\nOK, Kurdiatcha's response to my analysis is entirely correct. I will point out, though, that I never said it was anything other than speculation.  At any rate, I hadn't slept in about 3 days, and in that context my analysis made perfect sense to me.  Sorry!\n\nNew theory: I think the perseption that there is more physical diversity in Europe than Africa or Asia could be partially explained by the fact that Europe is geographically smaller.  So it's just that all the different groups are more crammed together and it ends up looking more diverse.\n_________\n\n>>>It was one of the better responses I’ve seen on Yahoo\n>>>answers. It just happened to be incorrect.\nSo I never use the expression "lol," but it seems rather appropriate here.  That was well said.  Thanks : )\n\nYou're probably right on my other theory too.  I should just stop speculating on this entirely.  I do want to point out, though, that the guy who posted the question and said Europeans look more different than Asians is Asian (at least he said so in another question), so I don't think you're entirely correct that people are always more tuned in to difference within their own racial group.  I wouldn't have bothered to speculate on the issue at all (after you shoot down my first theory, that is) except I thought it could possibly hold some tinsy bit of truth because of that.
348984
I am punjabi, so albeit, i am a little bit biased. Historically, you're right, in that north indian people are considered to be caucasian, and the best looking. Although in recent anthropological defintions races have become more specialized, ultimately, it is just the original 4. In terms of eye color and hair difference, it is important to note that our hair color and eye color does not have anything to do with race; rather, race is based on hair texture and eye shape (amongst other things). The reason for this is because color for both is contingent of climate. It is a response for necessary sun protection.\n\nSouth indian people consider themselves to be the 'true' indians, because (although it pains me to admit it), they are. They were the first people of the land, while north indian people emigrated thousands of years ago. That is also why, often they look a little different (particularly bone structure---punjabi's a bigger), because they lack genetic variation.\n\ninteresting question--good luck in your history class. I hope my thoughts helped.\n\njai hind!
524242
This is a point that has been taken up by those in scientific and academic circles.\n\nSo, no, you aren't the only one.\n\nNot long before I was born, it was assumed that Black blood types must be different than Whites, and Blacks who wanted to donate blood were rejected.\n\nTurns out there's no relation between blood type and race.\n\nThere have been people arguing that the whole concept of race is bogus.\n\nA few weeks ago, I caught part of a really interesting documentary on PBS of a genetics expert who was following out the migrations of humans.\n\nTurns out, everyone in Europe, most of East Asia (northern, primarily) and the Americas are related, and descended from the same small group of people -- who had first migrated to the middle of Eurasia, then some traveled west to Europe, and a very few to the Americas.\n\nThe differences that have sprung up since the separation of people into the "races" are as nothing compared to our shared traits.\n\nAnd no one is "pure" as there has been mixing ever since.\n\nNo, you're both in good company and on solid ground in finding the concept bogus.
408328
First of all, all people are mixed. \nOf all the Races on the earth the caucasian is the most mixed.\nOn top of this, american whites are even more mixed than european whites. In Europe, you can still tell where most people came from within a range of 100 miles. \nAmerican whites are mutts. They are english, scott, scotts-irish,\nirish, welsh, french, spanish, dutch, scandinavian along with every other race.\n\nOf all Races, blacks and then asians are the most pure.\nThey have mixed and diverged the least.\nWhites are found from pale to dark brown.
77221
Jews arent a race. There are Jews of every race, and one who converts TO Judaism becomes a Jew, and someone who was born a Jew who converts to another faith is no longer a Jew. A person cannot convert to a race. If an Asian converts to Judaism, he or she becomes BOTH an Asian AND a Jew.