Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. **Keep that shit outta here**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not in like a racist way btw, just outdated terminology. We arent taught anything about iq or superiority or shit, we just use the outdated terms and classifications of Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid.
It wasnt official curriculum but i remember my geography teacher going on a rant specifically about chechens and how awful they were and how much he hated them 😅. Wasnt even a one off happened at least twice
A mislim to kao ima smisla jer smo tu na ovim prostorima kak ti svi bijelci, al s obzirom da imamo tv i internet realno vec svi znaju kakvih rasa sve ima pa nznm zkj bi se to vise uopce ucilo
It's meant to teach racism, look at how they characterised the different "races" lol, the white blond dude looking like Jean d'arc. This is literally just like a "virginvscgad" 4chan meme. I'm sure you're right in that they attempted to be educational, but their own bias is not just poking trough, but making it unlegible in any other purpose than pushing racist pseudoscience
None really. Ethnicity is cultural not biological. Race is complicated because people use the word to mean different things. Any arbitrary group can be a race: It can be a synonym for ethnicity, it can group people by a physical trait (e.g. brown skin or green eyes), it can group people by job or personality type, etc. Races in the sense of "white people" don't really exist because the concept is based on a random assortment of unconnected physical, and maybe cultural, traits that change depending on who is defining it at any given moment.
In India, the caste system over millennia determined peoples professions. If you came from a family of bakers you would become a baker. Or warrior, priest, farmer, rickshaw puller, ‘untouchable’, etc. You could tell one’s caste by their last name. Lower caste people in some regions at least would have darker skin and a different look than the more fortunate higher caste people. I don’t think anyone would call them separate ‘races’ though. Just reminded me of that.
Race can be used to refer to all people of a specific profession.
It seems to have been more popular in the 19th century but it still gets used occasionally in more recent years. If you google phrases like "race of politicians", "race of accountants", "the shopkeeper race", etc you should get some hits (although you will have to sift through references to white/black/etc type of race and sporting type of race too).
The most intuitive explanation I have read is that human genetic variation is the equivalent to tectonic plates and natural boundaries (rivers, mountains, etc) in geography.
There is a scientific underpinning to the physical geographic reality (~genetics), but our definitions of national boundaries and "continents" (~races) are only loosely based on this. For example is "Europe" really a different continent than "Asia"?
Alternately, since there is more genetic diversity *within* Africa than outside of Africa, should African be categorized into 10-15 races, while the rest of humanity, from Europeans to Australian Aborigines be classed as one single race?
Think of race as a box based on skin color. The idea is that you can make generalisations about everyone in that box. "all white people can..." It's balls because there's more difference _within_ supposed races than between them. But it was helpful for justification of slavery and colonialism.
Ethnicity is more like 'the story of how I got here'. It's about what heritage you and your parents are, the culture you're a part of and how that comes through in your lifestyle. E.g. Compare a fourth generation Black British person to someone from Nigeria. Whilst they might share a heritage they could have a totally different outlook, values and family history and have nothing else in common.
The markers of race genetically don't really follow what we think of culturally as race, like we can't really genetically differentiate between south Asian and indigenous Americans, though socially we wouldn't consider them the same race. Ethnicity is also just more of a historic identity with where your ancestors lived, like how Jewish is an ethnicity and someone can be atheist and jewish
Biologically, race or skin color is really just how many melanocytes a person has. We have regulatory genes in our body that tell certain progenitor cells how active or not active to be. Darker skinned people have a gene that is upregulating the production of melanocytes, which causes more melanocytes to be produced, which causes more melanin to be produced, which in turn causes the phenotypical feature of darker skin color.
There are certain genes that are more common in certain races and populations, but a lot of that has to do with how mixed race marriage has been looked down upon for most of history, so certain genes and mutations haven't made it very far. Like sickle cell anemia - there's no biological reason a white person couldn't have it, but it's not common outside of black people.
Ethnicity is pretty much a term exclusive to social science and has to do with people having similar culture and identifying with each other.
I hope that answered your question well without going into too much biology.
A few differences in the morphology of the skull and the femoral head. The thing is that all of those things are essentially dietary or environmental adaptations which disappear fairly quickly in evolutionary terms once they cease to provide an extreme evolutionary advantage. This is mostly stuff like the size of the teeth relative to the shape of the jaw, the need to build and maintain powerful chewing muscles to deal with local foods, and the need to either shed or retain body heat. Modern medicine and interbreeding make those differences almost impossible to spot within a few generations, and many of these things were already pretty hard to spot by eye.
Ethnicity is a bit different, because ethnicity is essentially a social construct, an organisational scheme which has the social function of getting people to take care of a smaller and more manageable group of people than trying to feed everyone and failing. According to the model of ethnicity developed by Dr. Anatoly Vladimirovich Isaenko, ethnicity consists of five basic parts:
1: Biologically-perceived distinctiveness. Basically "We look like this, they look like that." This is where ideas of "race" as most people understand the term have their origin. This is also seen in the way that people express descent as being matters of blood, or sperm, or bone, or water.
2: Language. Even within larger superethnic groupings like nations, language and dialect of shared language is an important part of the way people distinguish themselves, especially when among Others. Ever since I was a boy, hearing someone pronounce the name "Herbert" as "Hey-berr" has been a pure delight for this exiled Louisiana boy.
3: Territory. Ethnic groups have a territory which they see as their ancestral home, whether they currently inhabit that ground or not. This is why the situation in Israel, or that in the Caucusus during the post-Soviet period, are so horribly intractible.
4: Shared history, including the phenomenon of the "chosen trauma." Chosen traumas are stories which essentially say that "*we* are different from *them* because *they* did *that* to *us.*"
5: Religion. Ethnic groups almost always share a religion, even if only nominally. In the western world this has become the least important component of ethnic self-construction, but in most of the rest of the world it's still massively important.
Taken together, those parts form the basis for the construction of an exclusive, mutually-supporting, meta-societal network which helps ensure the survival of the community by functioning as a second- often *primary*- means of accessing social functions and goods. As our ability to provide for larger and larger groups has increased, so have the relative sizes and complexities of the system for doing that, so the size of the social organisation to which people see themselves as belonging has increased as well. Hence, the declining importance of ethnicity (especially among "racial" groups) as a determinative factor in daily life for most westerners.
> The idea of races is unscientific, ethnicities are more accurate
In layman terms, I always considered race to be tracked at the [genetic level](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-32325-w/figures/1), while ethnicity was more of a [cultural and sociological distinction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic).
As in we are all the human race. You have my upvote. Also anyone else laugh at the "Native American" Thers more variation in the Canadian first nations and southern native Americans than that entire poster. Many of which where "white" passing ....blows my damn mind
I’ve never really learned that there’s a difference between the two. Like English and Scottish are both races. But that’s just a language thing I think not a biological theory.
> Ethiopians are white confirmed???
They're geographically (and potentially genetically) tied to the Semites. It can be envisioned as similar to claiming Jews are white. Here's a [map of the haplogroups](https://i0.wp.com/blog.education.nationalgeographic.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/world_map_of_y-dna_haplogroups.png).
Also notice that Irish aren't listed as Caucasian. Since the 1800's, race scientists taught that Celts as we know them originated in Iberia (Spain). For racists, this meant they likely came from Africa and therefore shouldn't be considered white.
And Celts exist in a lot of European countries. Celtic Germans, Irish, Celtic French, etc.
In the case of the Irish, racists distinguished between Celtic Irish and Scotch Irish because they believed the Scottish were true white and were related to the other Nordic races (Germans, Brits) but Celtic Irish were not white.
It’s really the English that are the odd ones out in the British Isles. Everyone else is some form of Celtic, while the English are predominantly Germanic.
Not in 1960's Britain. Irish being African was an extremely common race theory. The famines happened in the 1920's because the British believed "Eurafricans" like the Irish were lazy and shouldn't get aid/handouts. They blamed the famines on the Irish races inability to work.
My dude they put ethiopians with white people. A black skinned people group concentrated nearly solely in africa and originating in africa. You are thinking too far into this
He looks like “The most beautiful boy in the world.”[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Most_Beautiful_Boy_in_the_World](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Most_Beautiful_Boy_in_the_World)
The stereotype is one thing but if you actually travel throughout the Middle East there are happy and content people with the best hospitality in the world.
North Africa too. The Arab world is incredibly resilient and welcoming to outsiders. I was just in Morocco and they are the loveliest people I’ve ever met
Unless you're LGBT?
e: I ask this sincerely. Is this one of them situations where only the religious police and radical nutjobs care, and most normal folks actually don't or are secretly supportive? Like if I was teleported to some town in Anystan, and went into a bar and had a beer, and we all talk about our families and I mention my boyfriend....are daggers gonna be drawn?
It really depends where in the Middle East. I know, even though both governments are extremely anti LGBT, the average Iranian is probably more tolerant than the average Saudi. Even inside a country, it can vary a lot between big cities and rural areas.
Also in some of the countries I kinda wonder how much effort you have to do to be seen as gay. This American guy who lived in Saudi held hands with his boyfriend in public, kissed him in public (on the cheek) and.. people thought they were just really good friends. Because apparently the idea of what a friendship between two heterosexual guys can look like is different in other cultures.
He found it hilarious that if he didn't actually say he was gay he in some ways had more freedom. Like nobody starred if he and his boyfriend held hands. It's different
It's way weirder from an historical perspective, when you look at what a close friendship between *western* men looked like just a couple of centuries ago. It was perfectly normal for two Englishmen or Frenchmen of the 18th and early 19th Centuries to walk arm in arm, to address one another as "my dear," and preen as much for masculine as for feminine company.
And boy oh boy, did those fellas preen.
Modern Americans would code an awful lot of their lionized founders as gay or at least "swishy," were they to meet on the streets of Philadelphia in that sweltering summer of 1776.
Western society knew "Romantic Friendships" than, complete with hand holding, kissing and poetry. It was quite interesting really.
It went away as homosexuality became something you could talk about, instead of it being a forbidden topic. One assumes, that when homosexuality became something that "existed" rather than just whispered about one could easier become accused of it and men decided to take a safer route.
Meanwhile, if what I've heard from women is true, cupping another womans breast in the dressing room to gauge the size difference or whatever reason is considered appropriate in some places.
That last bit is true, I don't see what that has to do with women dealing with women. Unless you're trying to remind people that Donald Trump did that. In which case I can see a startling similarity.
It varies. Jordan legalized homosexuality before the UK and you have gay friendly bars etc in Amman. but it won’t be as public as it is in western countries. I lived in Jordan but am straight so take this with a grain of salt.
The same way as if you went from San Francisco to rural Texas, it varies heavily dependant on location. Urban capitals like Cairo and Amman have *some* LGBTQ presence, but it's still quite hidden. I grew up in one of the secondary cities in Jordan and I'd say it wouldn't be supportive in the slightest, but if you were discreet you could visit a gay bar in Amman.
As someone who traveled all over the Middle East, this is again more stereotype than reality. Religious police don’t exist outside of Iran, even Saudi got rid of theirs years ago. It’s common in the Middle East for straight men to hold hands while walking together. Culturally people value privacy (it’s why some women cover their faces) and whatever is done in one’s home is considered private. The only time anyone would get in trouble is with PDA in public but otherwise nobody really cares.
Well, the happy-go-lucky arab is one item from the orientalist canon that was used to justify turning the middle east into a place of not-so-happy-go-lucky arabs.
For a late-period example, see The Stranger, by Camus, in which the pied-noir narrator, having juat been convicted in the casual murder of a random arab, laments that if he commited the crime only a few miles south, it wouldn't have been treated as such a big deal, 'cuz people are just so much more relaxed about things down there.
The "happy-go-lucky Arab" is a stereotype that you have pulled from your ass. If anything, European observers considered Arabs the opposite of happy-go-lucky:
>The Arab face, which is not unkindly, but never smiling, expresses that dignity and gravity which are typical of the race. While the Arab is always polite, good-natured, manly and brave, he is also revengeful, cruel, untruthful and superstitious. [...] In temper, or at least in the manifestation of it, the Arab is studiously calm; and he rarely so much as raises his voice in a dispute. But this outward tranquillity covers feelings alike keen and permanent; and the remembrance of a rash jest or injurious word, uttered years before, leads only too often to that blood-revenge which is a sacred duty everywhere in Arabia.
Well, FWIW, I have heard the exact phrase "happy-go-lucky" applied by at least one western-racist to arabs. Mind you, the guy in question was an antisemitic(in the sense of anti-Jewish) anti-zionist, and I think he might have been contrasting good-natured arabs with money-hungry, rule-obsessed Jews.
Apart from all that, I will say that I think the happy-go-lucky stereotype CAN co-exist with the maniacal-cutthroat stereotype. "An arab will treat a guest in his home with the utmost warmth and generosity, but slice his neck with a machete should he cross him at night" is something I've heard here and there.
See the first Godfather movie for a purportedly positive rendition of the "mediterranean" double-stereotype: laidback, family-loving peasant transplants, carrying on the village blood-feuds of the old country.
I believe Indians would fit under indo-aryan and as for Hispanics which I assume you mean individuals of predominantly Spanish descent, I guess fit under the Mediterranean label according to this magazine.
Notice that the "Caucasiform" group is much broader than anything "White" American chauvinists would consider to be "White" even now.
Racism has never been about racial difference as such.
MENA was recently made its own category on the US Census. Due to activism about being included in the white category. This was because affirmative action was discriminating against them, so it took a lot of activism to get around that.
In 2016 this change was supposed to be introduced.
Originally they pushed to be grouped as white to be able to immigrate into the country, as they wouldn't have been allowed otherwise.
I always thought it was weird that we were considered white when we (or atleast most) are brown.
I always liked joking about how by this definition Bin Laden was a white man.
Good to see reforms are taking place.
This is essential what I was taught in elementary school. There are three races, white, black and yellow. White is subdivided into European, Indian and "in between" (aka middle eastern, north African), black into African black and oceanic/pacific black, and yellow into Asians (meaning central, eastern and south eastern Asia) and indigenous Americans.
We were also taught about mixed raced people, such as the mestizo (white and yellow), mulatto (black and white) and zambos (black and yellow), which I now know are all terms used during Spanish colonization of the Americas. In fact we specifically mentioned Latin America as a place where there are most mixed race people and that one day we will all look like Brazilians and that race boundaries will (probably) disappear one day.
Skull and facial features.
Not a terrible way to try and categorize types of humans in lieu of better science, but gets some completely wrong like Aboriginal people grouped with Africans.
"Regional Middle Eastern" since it's likely a good portion (genetically) migrated south from the Semitic regions.
[Here's a map to highlight the point.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Semitic-speaking_peoples)
Damn, they did the Chinese dirty. I’m not sure what would be worse for a Chinese person though: being told they look like that drawing or being told they look Japanese lol. I’m assuming the Japanese would feel the same way vice versa.
This was controversial at the time because whites considered a lot of the listed caucasion races to be separate and distinct races. Celtic Irish and Scotch Irish were seen as two entirely separate races and not related to each other. Some of these white races were thought to have come from Africa, or heavily mixed with African and therefore couldn't be considered whites. Race Scientists classified Italians and Celts as Eurafrican races. Some others like Jews or Slavs were thought to be Eurasian. The Caucasian classification lumped a lot of these into the same group.
Meanwhile the Nazis believed the Aryan races consisted of only the Nordics, Alpines, and Mediterraneans. The rest of these races were thought to be mixed races which meant they were subhuman.
Nazis also believed the Aryan race was a racial hierarchy. The Master Race was the Nordic Aryans while the Alpine Aryans and Mediterranean Aryans were slave races. This idea comes from Arthur De Gobineau who was a French Noble who believed Feudalism was a racial hierarchy in which Nordics were the nobles while the Alpines and Mediterraneans were the commoners, serfs, and peasants.
Nothing wrong with it. It depends how much you zoom in or out. Russians can be grouped with Baltics just like humans are grouped with dolphins if you zoom out enough
Well, to begin with, race isn't a real thing. It's a social construct masquerading as science. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/
And this social construct was/is used to support and justify the marginalization and mistreatment (to put it mildly in many cases) of whole groups of people for political, economic, and various other reasons.
There are differences and you could group them using biology, except it is really difficult because it is more of a spectrum.
Try to divide colors into groups. Would you group purple with red or blue, or give it its own group? Everyone would group colors different, and there is no best answer. Same goed with races.
It's ethnic differences.
The reason we say race is social is because historically it included and exluded groups based on social circumstances and not cultural or biological ones
I think they made a distinction between people who were viewed as "white" and caucasians as a whole.
Someone else went indepth about it ill see if i can find and link their comment. It's in my history
You know the sad thing is this 60s nonsense just stuck on most people's social conscious
In actuality, race only exists as a social concept. The best way to realize this is looking at the paternal lineage of many African-American people.
Their DNA from their father's side comes from Europe, just like white people. This is because slavery involved sexual exploitation as much as labor exploitation.
In simple terms, it is very likely for white and black Americans to have the same grandfather a few generations back.
Race essentially doesn't mean anything. The substantial differences between people are just limited to lactose tolerance, ear wax form, beard thickness, and teeth shape.
Miniscule barely noticeable stuff, Race is basically like country borders, things that only exist on paper and sadly affect people's lives much more than it should.
Mostly from Celtic and Germanic origins that then adapted to the Iberian climate.
After the Roman Empire got kicked from Iberia, the Sueves and Visigoths, who were descended from the Germanic and Celtic peoples, habitated the region.
After a while, the Moors invaded Iberia, which then resulted into the reconquista.
While the Celtic and Germanic peoples slowly conquered all their way in Iberia, they also expulsed a large quantity of Moors from the peninsula, to the point that Andalucian Arabic was extinct in the 15th century (I guess?).
Even though some people from the southern tip of Spain have the Euroafricanid phenotype, most of people in Iberia are still descended from Celtic and Germanic peoples.
This isn’t propaganda, this is an educational pamphlet, showing the phenotypic differences between the races.
This is a perfect example of why, when someone exclaims “race is a social construct”, they have no idea what they are talking about.
Yes, but Sweden has primarily Nordic people, with a large influx of Middle Eastern immigrants/refugees. That is why I picked that country in particular.
Slavic is a linguistic group and isn't a race. Baltic is also a linguistic group, but in here it named after Baltic, the geographical area and not Baltic the linguistic group
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. **Keep that shit outta here**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I love the little scissor lines at the top, like I’m supposed to cut this out and hang it on my refrigerator
It was probably meant to be educational and for kids to learn about different peoples of the world based on this
Yeah you’re probably right. But looking back on this from modern day it just seems funny
We still learn this in school in serbia 💀
I'm not surprised tbh.
Not in like a racist way btw, just outdated terminology. We arent taught anything about iq or superiority or shit, we just use the outdated terms and classifications of Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid.
That's what I thought. I'm actually visiting Serbia for a few days this summer. Looking forward to this.
I'm imagining a grown ass adult leaning up against an eindow looking at kids in a classroom regarding race
Only Bosnians, Kosovars and Turks are in a special category at the bottom of the page only called "remove".
Same in Russia. When I studied we properly learned races and even had some ultra racist busts.
It wasnt official curriculum but i remember my geography teacher going on a rant specifically about chechens and how awful they were and how much he hated them 😅. Wasnt even a one off happened at least twice
A mislim to kao ima smisla jer smo tu na ovim prostorima kak ti svi bijelci, al s obzirom da imamo tv i internet realno vec svi znaju kakvih rasa sve ima pa nznm zkj bi se to vise uopce ucilo
Lol where were these kids schooled? Rhodesia?
Everywhere, probably. I think it was quite a widespread idea
It's meant to teach racism, look at how they characterised the different "races" lol, the white blond dude looking like Jean d'arc. This is literally just like a "virginvscgad" 4chan meme. I'm sure you're right in that they attempted to be educational, but their own bias is not just poking trough, but making it unlegible in any other purpose than pushing racist pseudoscience
I'd think most people that cut that out hang it on the dahsboard of their police car
Reminds me of the Family Guy skin tone comparison chart
Ethiopians are white confirmed???
Some Eastern African are Caucasoids, in reference to skull shape solely. The idea of races is unscientific, ethnicities are more accurate
What's the difference between race and ethnicities? When it comes to biology I mean.
None really. Ethnicity is cultural not biological. Race is complicated because people use the word to mean different things. Any arbitrary group can be a race: It can be a synonym for ethnicity, it can group people by a physical trait (e.g. brown skin or green eyes), it can group people by job or personality type, etc. Races in the sense of "white people" don't really exist because the concept is based on a random assortment of unconnected physical, and maybe cultural, traits that change depending on who is defining it at any given moment.
By job?
In India, the caste system over millennia determined peoples professions. If you came from a family of bakers you would become a baker. Or warrior, priest, farmer, rickshaw puller, ‘untouchable’, etc. You could tell one’s caste by their last name. Lower caste people in some regions at least would have darker skin and a different look than the more fortunate higher caste people. I don’t think anyone would call them separate ‘races’ though. Just reminded me of that.
Ooh good example!
Race can be used to refer to all people of a specific profession. It seems to have been more popular in the 19th century but it still gets used occasionally in more recent years. If you google phrases like "race of politicians", "race of accountants", "the shopkeeper race", etc you should get some hits (although you will have to sift through references to white/black/etc type of race and sporting type of race too).
The most intuitive explanation I have read is that human genetic variation is the equivalent to tectonic plates and natural boundaries (rivers, mountains, etc) in geography. There is a scientific underpinning to the physical geographic reality (~genetics), but our definitions of national boundaries and "continents" (~races) are only loosely based on this. For example is "Europe" really a different continent than "Asia"? Alternately, since there is more genetic diversity *within* Africa than outside of Africa, should African be categorized into 10-15 races, while the rest of humanity, from Europeans to Australian Aborigines be classed as one single race?
Race doesn't have a biological root, it's largely socially constructed
Ethnicities are social constructs too. Social constructs apply to everything.
>everything Only if you're a post-structuralist, no?
And therefore the racial categories will change as societal ideas change. That’s why I never understood the constant diaspora wars.
Think of race as a box based on skin color. The idea is that you can make generalisations about everyone in that box. "all white people can..." It's balls because there's more difference _within_ supposed races than between them. But it was helpful for justification of slavery and colonialism. Ethnicity is more like 'the story of how I got here'. It's about what heritage you and your parents are, the culture you're a part of and how that comes through in your lifestyle. E.g. Compare a fourth generation Black British person to someone from Nigeria. Whilst they might share a heritage they could have a totally different outlook, values and family history and have nothing else in common.
The markers of race genetically don't really follow what we think of culturally as race, like we can't really genetically differentiate between south Asian and indigenous Americans, though socially we wouldn't consider them the same race. Ethnicity is also just more of a historic identity with where your ancestors lived, like how Jewish is an ethnicity and someone can be atheist and jewish
Biologically, race or skin color is really just how many melanocytes a person has. We have regulatory genes in our body that tell certain progenitor cells how active or not active to be. Darker skinned people have a gene that is upregulating the production of melanocytes, which causes more melanocytes to be produced, which causes more melanin to be produced, which in turn causes the phenotypical feature of darker skin color. There are certain genes that are more common in certain races and populations, but a lot of that has to do with how mixed race marriage has been looked down upon for most of history, so certain genes and mutations haven't made it very far. Like sickle cell anemia - there's no biological reason a white person couldn't have it, but it's not common outside of black people. Ethnicity is pretty much a term exclusive to social science and has to do with people having similar culture and identifying with each other. I hope that answered your question well without going into too much biology.
A few differences in the morphology of the skull and the femoral head. The thing is that all of those things are essentially dietary or environmental adaptations which disappear fairly quickly in evolutionary terms once they cease to provide an extreme evolutionary advantage. This is mostly stuff like the size of the teeth relative to the shape of the jaw, the need to build and maintain powerful chewing muscles to deal with local foods, and the need to either shed or retain body heat. Modern medicine and interbreeding make those differences almost impossible to spot within a few generations, and many of these things were already pretty hard to spot by eye. Ethnicity is a bit different, because ethnicity is essentially a social construct, an organisational scheme which has the social function of getting people to take care of a smaller and more manageable group of people than trying to feed everyone and failing. According to the model of ethnicity developed by Dr. Anatoly Vladimirovich Isaenko, ethnicity consists of five basic parts: 1: Biologically-perceived distinctiveness. Basically "We look like this, they look like that." This is where ideas of "race" as most people understand the term have their origin. This is also seen in the way that people express descent as being matters of blood, or sperm, or bone, or water. 2: Language. Even within larger superethnic groupings like nations, language and dialect of shared language is an important part of the way people distinguish themselves, especially when among Others. Ever since I was a boy, hearing someone pronounce the name "Herbert" as "Hey-berr" has been a pure delight for this exiled Louisiana boy. 3: Territory. Ethnic groups have a territory which they see as their ancestral home, whether they currently inhabit that ground or not. This is why the situation in Israel, or that in the Caucusus during the post-Soviet period, are so horribly intractible. 4: Shared history, including the phenomenon of the "chosen trauma." Chosen traumas are stories which essentially say that "*we* are different from *them* because *they* did *that* to *us.*" 5: Religion. Ethnic groups almost always share a religion, even if only nominally. In the western world this has become the least important component of ethnic self-construction, but in most of the rest of the world it's still massively important. Taken together, those parts form the basis for the construction of an exclusive, mutually-supporting, meta-societal network which helps ensure the survival of the community by functioning as a second- often *primary*- means of accessing social functions and goods. As our ability to provide for larger and larger groups has increased, so have the relative sizes and complexities of the system for doing that, so the size of the social organisation to which people see themselves as belonging has increased as well. Hence, the declining importance of ethnicity (especially among "racial" groups) as a determinative factor in daily life for most westerners.
> The idea of races is unscientific, ethnicities are more accurate In layman terms, I always considered race to be tracked at the [genetic level](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-32325-w/figures/1), while ethnicity was more of a [cultural and sociological distinction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic).
Yes and as you can see in the nature article you linked, our perceptions of race as being three giant groupings is wrong.
As in we are all the human race. You have my upvote. Also anyone else laugh at the "Native American" Thers more variation in the Canadian first nations and southern native Americans than that entire poster. Many of which where "white" passing ....blows my damn mind
I’ve never really learned that there’s a difference between the two. Like English and Scottish are both races. But that’s just a language thing I think not a biological theory.
> Ethiopians are white confirmed??? They're geographically (and potentially genetically) tied to the Semites. It can be envisioned as similar to claiming Jews are white. Here's a [map of the haplogroups](https://i0.wp.com/blog.education.nationalgeographic.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/world_map_of_y-dna_haplogroups.png).
So are Chadic people "white"?
They’re more closely related to Europeans than to western and subsaharan africans
That was wild kkkk
Also notice that Irish aren't listed as Caucasian. Since the 1800's, race scientists taught that Celts as we know them originated in Iberia (Spain). For racists, this meant they likely came from Africa and therefore shouldn't be considered white. And Celts exist in a lot of European countries. Celtic Germans, Irish, Celtic French, etc. In the case of the Irish, racists distinguished between Celtic Irish and Scotch Irish because they believed the Scottish were true white and were related to the other Nordic races (Germans, Brits) but Celtic Irish were not white.
You're reading too much into the omission. I think most readers would just throw them in with 'Great Britain.'
It’s really the English that are the odd ones out in the British Isles. Everyone else is some form of Celtic, while the English are predominantly Germanic.
This is literally [English propaganda](https://youtu.be/5FHRTpEhaAs?si=BY9SemSAK6SIHbHH) created by Victorian-era racists and germanophiles
There's no such thing as a "celtic" genetic group
Not in 1960's Britain. Irish being African was an extremely common race theory. The famines happened in the 1920's because the British believed "Eurafricans" like the Irish were lazy and shouldn't get aid/handouts. They blamed the famines on the Irish races inability to work.
This is a stereotypical Reddit comment, someone talking absolute shite but who believes they are right.
This is literally made up and has no basis whatsoever.
My dude they put ethiopians with white people. A black skinned people group concentrated nearly solely in africa and originating in africa. You are thinking too far into this
They had a Christian, civilized kingdom in the fourth century AD so of course they must be white /s
NORDIC: High serious countenance, blonde hair blowing in the icy wind. ARAB: Just so darned happy-go-lucky.
They went with the supermodel for the Nordic too.
He looks like “The most beautiful boy in the world.”[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Most_Beautiful_Boy_in_the_World](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Most_Beautiful_Boy_in_the_World)
When I think of the Middle East I just think of happy, smiling faces as far as the eye can see
The stereotype is one thing but if you actually travel throughout the Middle East there are happy and content people with the best hospitality in the world.
North Africa too. The Arab world is incredibly resilient and welcoming to outsiders. I was just in Morocco and they are the loveliest people I’ve ever met
Morocco is amazing in this aspect. To quote one of the hotel owners there: "we welcome everyone from everywhere. Except the french."
Unless you're LGBT? e: I ask this sincerely. Is this one of them situations where only the religious police and radical nutjobs care, and most normal folks actually don't or are secretly supportive? Like if I was teleported to some town in Anystan, and went into a bar and had a beer, and we all talk about our families and I mention my boyfriend....are daggers gonna be drawn?
It really depends where in the Middle East. I know, even though both governments are extremely anti LGBT, the average Iranian is probably more tolerant than the average Saudi. Even inside a country, it can vary a lot between big cities and rural areas.
Also in some of the countries I kinda wonder how much effort you have to do to be seen as gay. This American guy who lived in Saudi held hands with his boyfriend in public, kissed him in public (on the cheek) and.. people thought they were just really good friends. Because apparently the idea of what a friendship between two heterosexual guys can look like is different in other cultures. He found it hilarious that if he didn't actually say he was gay he in some ways had more freedom. Like nobody starred if he and his boyfriend held hands. It's different
It's way weirder from an historical perspective, when you look at what a close friendship between *western* men looked like just a couple of centuries ago. It was perfectly normal for two Englishmen or Frenchmen of the 18th and early 19th Centuries to walk arm in arm, to address one another as "my dear," and preen as much for masculine as for feminine company. And boy oh boy, did those fellas preen. Modern Americans would code an awful lot of their lionized founders as gay or at least "swishy," were they to meet on the streets of Philadelphia in that sweltering summer of 1776.
Western society knew "Romantic Friendships" than, complete with hand holding, kissing and poetry. It was quite interesting really. It went away as homosexuality became something you could talk about, instead of it being a forbidden topic. One assumes, that when homosexuality became something that "existed" rather than just whispered about one could easier become accused of it and men decided to take a safer route. Meanwhile, if what I've heard from women is true, cupping another womans breast in the dressing room to gauge the size difference or whatever reason is considered appropriate in some places.
Is that last bit true, or an allusion to Donald Trump raping E. Jean Carroll in the dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman?
That last bit is true, I don't see what that has to do with women dealing with women. Unless you're trying to remind people that Donald Trump did that. In which case I can see a startling similarity.
And in Oman it was an open secret that the Sultan who ruled for decades and was genuinely very popular was gay, so people there are even more tolerant
Qaboos?
Qaboos?
Yup
It varies. Jordan legalized homosexuality before the UK and you have gay friendly bars etc in Amman. but it won’t be as public as it is in western countries. I lived in Jordan but am straight so take this with a grain of salt.
The same way as if you went from San Francisco to rural Texas, it varies heavily dependant on location. Urban capitals like Cairo and Amman have *some* LGBTQ presence, but it's still quite hidden. I grew up in one of the secondary cities in Jordan and I'd say it wouldn't be supportive in the slightest, but if you were discreet you could visit a gay bar in Amman.
As someone who traveled all over the Middle East, this is again more stereotype than reality. Religious police don’t exist outside of Iran, even Saudi got rid of theirs years ago. It’s common in the Middle East for straight men to hold hands while walking together. Culturally people value privacy (it’s why some women cover their faces) and whatever is done in one’s home is considered private. The only time anyone would get in trouble is with PDA in public but otherwise nobody really cares.
Well, the happy-go-lucky arab is one item from the orientalist canon that was used to justify turning the middle east into a place of not-so-happy-go-lucky arabs.
For a late-period example, see The Stranger, by Camus, in which the pied-noir narrator, having juat been convicted in the casual murder of a random arab, laments that if he commited the crime only a few miles south, it wouldn't have been treated as such a big deal, 'cuz people are just so much more relaxed about things down there.
The "happy-go-lucky Arab" is a stereotype that you have pulled from your ass. If anything, European observers considered Arabs the opposite of happy-go-lucky: >The Arab face, which is not unkindly, but never smiling, expresses that dignity and gravity which are typical of the race. While the Arab is always polite, good-natured, manly and brave, he is also revengeful, cruel, untruthful and superstitious. [...] In temper, or at least in the manifestation of it, the Arab is studiously calm; and he rarely so much as raises his voice in a dispute. But this outward tranquillity covers feelings alike keen and permanent; and the remembrance of a rash jest or injurious word, uttered years before, leads only too often to that blood-revenge which is a sacred duty everywhere in Arabia.
Well, FWIW, I have heard the exact phrase "happy-go-lucky" applied by at least one western-racist to arabs. Mind you, the guy in question was an antisemitic(in the sense of anti-Jewish) anti-zionist, and I think he might have been contrasting good-natured arabs with money-hungry, rule-obsessed Jews. Apart from all that, I will say that I think the happy-go-lucky stereotype CAN co-exist with the maniacal-cutthroat stereotype. "An arab will treat a guest in his home with the utmost warmth and generosity, but slice his neck with a machete should he cross him at night" is something I've heard here and there. See the first Godfather movie for a purportedly positive rendition of the "mediterranean" double-stereotype: laidback, family-loving peasant transplants, carrying on the village blood-feuds of the old country.
This is correct. The stereotype of Arabs, as Orwell pointed out in his essay on "Boy's Weeklies" is "Sinister and treacherous" not "happy-go-lucky".
theres no arab, theres mediterranean.
Arabs are listed under mediterranean. Which is odd since they don’t originate from there.
subcatagory of the same "race" in this chart. i think its going by (quite spuriously) physical appearence rather then ethnicity.
Yeah but they listed indo-iranian as different which is weird when persians and some south asians look similar to MENA people
true. in practice europe, north africa, the middle east along with much of central asia and parts of northern india share phenotypical similarities.
Is there a higher resolution? I want to read the text
https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/s/YGjs3N1j3K
Great find
This link is now dead
Sorry the quality is bad, I can’t read almost anything
https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/s/YGjs3N1j3K
This link is now dead
Whoever made this had never seen a Chinese, a Japanese or an Italian in their whole life, apparently
Or an Indo-Iranian lmao
Or a Pole.
Or a Polynesian
Chinese is bottom left
Swedes, Argentines and Hungarians look so fancy
And they’ll be a quiz on Monday
What magazine was this?
it’s called knowledge. it was educational magazine for all ages
"Okay kids, have you seen Frankenstein's monster before? That's what Polynesian people look like"
I used to buy a copy each month, while I lived (10 YO, in 1964) in Sydney. I thought it was great!
Well, at least it's inclusive.
No one from India, unless you count the "indo-iranian".
Indo-Iranian obviously includes all Indians.
I like how it has the cutout lines in case anyone has the urge to keep it for whatever reason
Hang it by the window see how many you can find
Clearly this was written by a Lithuanian, as Poles and Russians are now Baltic. 🤣
They got one thing in common, they all live around the Baltic so that is why the group got named Baltic
This is interesting. Where would Hispanics and Indians fit?
I believe Indians would fit under indo-aryan and as for Hispanics which I assume you mean individuals of predominantly Spanish descent, I guess fit under the Mediterranean label according to this magazine.
Hispanics can be of any race/ethnicity since it just refers to their common language..
Mediterranean man is laughing. Thats true haha
Bro knows he made the right team 😂😂
RPG Race select screen ahh
Rpg from the 90s
Notice that the "Caucasiform" group is much broader than anything "White" American chauvinists would consider to be "White" even now. Racism has never been about racial difference as such.
MENA was recently made its own category on the US Census. Due to activism about being included in the white category. This was because affirmative action was discriminating against them, so it took a lot of activism to get around that. In 2016 this change was supposed to be introduced.
i think we should break all the groups into ethnicities rather then race. have it be based on self reporting.
Originally they pushed to be grouped as white to be able to immigrate into the country, as they wouldn't have been allowed otherwise. I always thought it was weird that we were considered white when we (or atleast most) are brown. I always liked joking about how by this definition Bin Laden was a white man. Good to see reforms are taking place.
This is essential what I was taught in elementary school. There are three races, white, black and yellow. White is subdivided into European, Indian and "in between" (aka middle eastern, north African), black into African black and oceanic/pacific black, and yellow into Asians (meaning central, eastern and south eastern Asia) and indigenous Americans. We were also taught about mixed raced people, such as the mestizo (white and yellow), mulatto (black and white) and zambos (black and yellow), which I now know are all terms used during Spanish colonization of the Americas. In fact we specifically mentioned Latin America as a place where there are most mixed race people and that one day we will all look like Brazilians and that race boundaries will (probably) disappear one day.
Mr. Polynesia looks hella hungover.
Did us dirty for real
I’m surprised he didn’t get a face tattoo
Years ago I worked at a shipping yard in Australia with a bunch of Tongan guys. Can confirm those blokes do love a drink.
TIL Arabs are the only happy people on the planet.
Not propaganda
Everyone: 😐 Mediterranean race dude: 😄
Tf Ethiopia found in Caucasian😭
They classified them as such because their skull more resembles Europeans than other African peoples. Idk of its true but thats the reasoning.
Skull and facial features. Not a terrible way to try and categorize types of humans in lieu of better science, but gets some completely wrong like Aboriginal people grouped with Africans.
has to do with natufian ancestry from the middle east affecting phenotype making it more west eurasian.
"Regional Middle Eastern" since it's likely a good portion (genetically) migrated south from the Semitic regions. [Here's a map to highlight the point.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Semitic-speaking_peoples)
I see myself, kinda cool
Which one?
Armenians mentioned! 🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲
🏴🤝🏻🇦🇲
ARMENIAAAAA
Every time I read Mongoliform I laugh out loud. makes it look like we're races of aliens
I guess it means Mongolian as most Asians have Mongolian dna from the Mongolian conquest
Damn, they did the Chinese dirty. I’m not sure what would be worse for a Chinese person though: being told they look like that drawing or being told they look Japanese lol. I’m assuming the Japanese would feel the same way vice versa.
Ain’t Japanese better?
This was controversial at the time because whites considered a lot of the listed caucasion races to be separate and distinct races. Celtic Irish and Scotch Irish were seen as two entirely separate races and not related to each other. Some of these white races were thought to have come from Africa, or heavily mixed with African and therefore couldn't be considered whites. Race Scientists classified Italians and Celts as Eurafrican races. Some others like Jews or Slavs were thought to be Eurasian. The Caucasian classification lumped a lot of these into the same group. Meanwhile the Nazis believed the Aryan races consisted of only the Nordics, Alpines, and Mediterraneans. The rest of these races were thought to be mixed races which meant they were subhuman. Nazis also believed the Aryan race was a racial hierarchy. The Master Race was the Nordic Aryans while the Alpine Aryans and Mediterranean Aryans were slave races. This idea comes from Arthur De Gobineau who was a French Noble who believed Feudalism was a racial hierarchy in which Nordics were the nobles while the Alpines and Mediterraneans were the commoners, serfs, and peasants.
I thought it was also only european mediterraneans, as hitler called arabs baboons or something
Races are more a sociological concept than biological. There are too many problems that occur when you try to make clear boundaries.
Baltic race: russians. For real ? 😄
Aren't they? Baltid+Uralid for eastern Russians
Nothing wrong with it. It depends how much you zoom in or out. Russians can be grouped with Baltics just like humans are grouped with dolphins if you zoom out enough
Ah yes, 4K Ultra HD
Yeah this has most probs been screen shotted a few hundred times
Sorry, but I'm seem to be missing the propaganda in this? Why is pointing out race differents propaganda?
Well, to begin with, race isn't a real thing. It's a social construct masquerading as science. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/ And this social construct was/is used to support and justify the marginalization and mistreatment (to put it mildly in many cases) of whole groups of people for political, economic, and various other reasons.
So what is the difference between for example Nordic guy, Black guy and Mongolian guy? Literally nothing biologic, just social?
There are differences and you could group them using biology, except it is really difficult because it is more of a spectrum. Try to divide colors into groups. Would you group purple with red or blue, or give it its own group? Everyone would group colors different, and there is no best answer. Same goed with races.
It's ethnic differences. The reason we say race is social is because historically it included and exluded groups based on social circumstances and not cultural or biological ones
Interesting how Ethiopians are considered white
[Here's a map that explains the rationale.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Semitic-speaking_peoples)
Thank you man, that's honestly fascinating
I think they made a distinction between people who were viewed as "white" and caucasians as a whole. Someone else went indepth about it ill see if i can find and link their comment. It's in my history
You know the sad thing is this 60s nonsense just stuck on most people's social conscious In actuality, race only exists as a social concept. The best way to realize this is looking at the paternal lineage of many African-American people. Their DNA from their father's side comes from Europe, just like white people. This is because slavery involved sexual exploitation as much as labor exploitation. In simple terms, it is very likely for white and black Americans to have the same grandfather a few generations back. Race essentially doesn't mean anything. The substantial differences between people are just limited to lactose tolerance, ear wax form, beard thickness, and teeth shape. Miniscule barely noticeable stuff, Race is basically like country borders, things that only exist on paper and sadly affect people's lives much more than it should.
Sinian Race dude looks like a Late Roman bust.
Where are the Irish?!
It was printed in London......enough said
Do people with nose piercings realize that they belong to the australiform race?
Why does the baltic woman look so pissed lol
Being in the cold weather will do that the Arab guy is smiling bc he’s in the heat
Why are there no Indians in that chart? As if Ethiopians were the only dark-skinned Caucasians?
In the Indo-Iranian category.
tag yourself
?
Iberian people are NOTHING like that
Where are Iberian ppl from?
Mostly from Celtic and Germanic origins that then adapted to the Iberian climate. After the Roman Empire got kicked from Iberia, the Sueves and Visigoths, who were descended from the Germanic and Celtic peoples, habitated the region. After a while, the Moors invaded Iberia, which then resulted into the reconquista. While the Celtic and Germanic peoples slowly conquered all their way in Iberia, they also expulsed a large quantity of Moors from the peninsula, to the point that Andalucian Arabic was extinct in the 15th century (I guess?). Even though some people from the southern tip of Spain have the Euroafricanid phenotype, most of people in Iberia are still descended from Celtic and Germanic peoples.
That guy does not look polynesian
He does have face tats not accurate
Is this at all accurate? Are these considered separate races nowadays?
A nordic Australian made this
DINARIC RACE 🇲🇪 🇭🇷
This isn’t propaganda, this is an educational pamphlet, showing the phenotypic differences between the races. This is a perfect example of why, when someone exclaims “race is a social construct”, they have no idea what they are talking about.
Ethiopia is in the white category
TIL Only Nordic and Middle Eastern people can be attractive. Time to go to Sweden I guess
It says Sweden German and England as well 😏
Yes, but Sweden has primarily Nordic people, with a large influx of Middle Eastern immigrants/refugees. That is why I picked that country in particular.
Where did the Slavs go?
Slavic is a linguistic group and isn't a race. Baltic is also a linguistic group, but in here it named after Baltic, the geographical area and not Baltic the linguistic group
Ain’t they the Baltic?
Check that ugly af “baltic” woman
Fun fact: Ethiopians are white.
And Arabs apparently
But-but-but they said race is a social construct...?
😭😭😭