Is Race a Geographical Project?
490188
You're really hung on race. Why is that? The answer to your \nquestion is ABSOLUTELY NO!!!
828531
The concept of race is just a gimmick thought up by evolutionist to justify feeling superior to some other people.  We are ONE race - HUMAN.  We are all God's children.  Let's start acting like it.
626474
I would have to say yes and its not only true with race.  As soon as you identify strongly with any group of people you automatically trust and respect your group more than the other group with nothing to base that on other than its your group.  \n\nIf we can just take it to another level and decide that we are all human beings and that we all belong to the same race then we wouldn't need all these subdivisions.  \n\nOn the other hand if we were truly non racist then we wouldn't have to worry about it.  Racism has improved but we still have a way to go.  Lets not take too many more backwards steps.
476408
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.
82169
Social research suggests that people make decisions partly based on their social location (age, class, ethnicity, etc).  Decisions are also shaped by cultural capital (that is-- the experiences we've been afforded due to our social location).\nI would say that race does affect decision, but not just because skin color may be different.  People tend to form frienships with others like themselves.  So if all your friends are wearing a certain brand t-shirt, you're more likely to go out and buy it, too.  \n\nThere are times when race and ethnicity are catalysts for decision-making.  Malcolm X comes immediately to mind.  He led black americans to embrace Islam and seek their roots in africa to separate themselves from white americans. In this case, I'd say that race was the primary factor in a decision.\nNow, for an everyday example:\nDeciding what type of car to buy-- Income level, what friends are driving, what you'll feel comfortable with (based on past experiences and the neighborhood you live in), etc. will all affect the decision.  Looking at it this way, it's easy to see how identity plays a part in our decisions.\n\nI think it's fascinating to look at at the world through a sociological lens.  --Hope some of this helps.
720330
Human race. Pretty soon there will only be one race anyway so it would be a moot point.
717260
It means that the project will abolish segregation. It will be open to all racial groups.
1047493
No, not legitimately. There have been more than a few attempts for racist motives, but the features that define race are minor superficial adaptations that are subject to heavy selective forces. \n\nThe modern races cropped up within the last 8000 years, well after the departure of archaic homo sapiens and after the evolution of behavioraly modern humans..
889172
Yes. Indians, for the most part, along with other West and South Asian groups such as Iranians (Persians), Pakistanis, Iraqis, Turks, etc., are definitely Caucasoid peoples. Most North Africans are also considered Caucasian.\nWhile race is largely a social construct, it does have a firm foundation in physical anthropology. It should be noted that skin color really has nothing much, if anything at all, to do with race. Unfortunately, far too many people take the term "white" much too literally and this narrow thinking no doubt contributes to the very erroneous notion  that only Anglo-Saxons or Scandnavians are white. (I've even seen a few postings here on YA from people who actually seem to believe that even Italians, Greeks, Spaniards or Portuguese aren't white! That, of course, is wrong.) There are several subdivisions within the "white" or Caucasoid  race. In addition, many, if not most, Hispanics ("Latinos") are actually Caucasian. Also, Gypsies (originally from the area around India and Persia) are Caucasian as well. \n(An interesting sidenote: Back in the 1930's, Ethiopians were considered, in some anthropological circles, to be Caucasoid because they lacked the profound Negroid features found in most sub-Saharan black Africans.) \nSo, in short, Indians, Arabs and Middle Eastern people are Caucasoid Asians, as opposed to Mongoloid Asians such as the Chinese,  Koreans, Japanese, Vietnamese, Filipinos, etc.   \nAmerindians are also a Mongoloid people who crossed the Bering land bridge from Asia to the Americas some 30,000 years ago.
1058884
The term race distinguishes a population of humans (or non-humans) from other populations. The most widely used human racial categories are based on visible traits (especially skin color and facial features), genes, and self-identification. ... scientists think common race definitions, or any race definitions pertaining to humans \nAn ethnic group is a human population whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry (Smith 1986). Ethnic groups are also usually united by common cultural, behavioral, linguistic, or religious practices. In this sense, an ethnic group is also a cultural community.\n\nFrom an objective standpoint, an ethnic group is also an endogamous population, that is, members of an ethnic group procreate primarily with other members of their ethnic group, something which is measurable in terms of characteristic average genetic frequencies. These differences, however, usually do not approach the magnitude of racial difference in that the genetic differences within an ethnic group are greater than the difference between any two ethnic groups. The characteristic of endogamy is reinforced by proximity, cultural familiarity, and also social pressure (in extreme cases, by legal command) to procreate within the ethnic group.\n\nIn English usage, nationality is the legal relationship between a person and a country. Where the country only has one legal system, the law matches the common perception, but where the country is divided into separate states, different rules apply. In the common law, upon birth, every person acquires a domicile. This is the relationship between a person and a specific legal system. Hence, one might have an Australian nationality and a domicile in New South Wales, or an American nationality and a domicile in Arizona. The person remains subject to the state's jurisdiction (the lex domicilii in Conflict of Laws) for the purposes of defining status and capacity wherever he or she might travel outside the state's territory; in exchange, the individual is entitled to the state's protection, and to other rights as well. This is an aspect of the public policy of parens patriae and derives from the social contract. In the civil law systems of continental Europe, either the law of nationality (known as the lex patriae) or the law of the place of habitual residence is preferred to domicile as the test of a person's status and capacity.
110632
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.
481602
The following page on the US Census website contains race data from the 2000 census:\n\nhttp://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t1/tab01.pdf
1083946
Very slight differences, but not enough to classify one race as superior or inferior at any event.  For instance, Norwegians tend to be taller than Southern Mexicans, but that has no bearing on anything.  It's pretty much a myth.  It more has to do with genetics from the direct ancestors.  Good question!
385098
there is not such a thing as a racial stock. the concept of races was an invention of the colonialist European 19th century, who tried to make biological categories of people.\nNowdays, with developments of genetics we know that the three main races as defined in that period doesn't corespond to biological realities.  Genetically there is one human specie, that's all, inside wich one you can find any  variation possible of individual characteristics in a continuum.\n\nOnly some countries in the world such as the USA continues to classify people in these imaginary categories, to maintain domination of one group in particular.
390509
'Race' is largely an empirical observation, based more than anything else on skin colour. Recent DNA evidence shows, for example, much more variance between two different groups of 'black' Africans than between one 'black' African and one 'white' European. So the word 'race' is ceasing to have any meaningful use as a word as we learn more about Genetics. As all humans can have (fertile) children with each other, we are all definitely the same species. I don't know anything about penguins, but I hear different prefixes ('Emperor' penguin, for example) so I guess that they have more than one species and thus are more variant than Homo Sapiens.
1169587
Races arise through natural evolution according to geography and climate.  People have since the "dawn of man" migrated.  Read your science and history books!\n\nThe "Garden of Eden" ("GOE") is by most archaeologists studying the issue thought to have been in the general region commonly known today as the Middle East, somewhere near the junction (roughly 6000 years ago) of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.\n\nPersons from that region are caucasoids (as opposed to either negroids or mongoloids).\n\nTheories that the GOE was located elsewhere (for instance, in Florida) are not widely accepted.  The "flaming sword" of the angel in the myth has led some to speculate that the GOE is not anymore, and perhaps never was, a terrestrial location.  Again, such speculation is generally regarded as incredible.\n\nWe do not know whether, or by how much, the paths of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers have shifted, and we aren't certain regarding the location of the Pishon and Gihon rivers with which the GOE was associated.\n\nMoreover, the current Tigris and Euphrates may have been named after distant ancient rivers that were either destroyed in a cataclysm or that were overtaken and renamed by conquering nomads; the refugees arriving in the locale of the current rivers naming them after the original rivers.\n\nProof beyond all doubt is an unreasonable standard for any archaeological work.\n\nAlthough archaelogy is a recognized science, much (if not most) of its research relies on anecdotal evidence.  It is this tool, critical to the science of archaeology, that those contesting the veracity of the myth most often wish to dismiss.\n\nHad not the Royal Library of Alexandria been destroyed, we might today have been able to pinpoint where the proverbial couple ate, drank and did other things -- but like so much else, that is merely speculation.
889330
like best foods, hotels, tourists, sight-seeing, restaurants, it is easy to do it in microsoft publisher - brochures.  is it geograpy homework? it shouldnt be hard for ya. ask ur friends for help.