English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

As I understand it, our species originated in one place.

All our "ethnic" characteristics are adaptations to the different climates to which we migrated.

So it follows that if a bunch of white families moved to central Africa and bred only with eachother, their descendents would eventually, after a certain interval of generations, be black. And same with black families to Norway or someplace. Correct?

[Some people seem to think I am actually proposing that this idea be tested, and they point out the practical limitations, like the epochal amount of time it would take. How stupid would I have to be? This is just speculative. My only object with this speculation is to undermine racist assumptions.]

2007-03-20 09:03:13 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science Anthropology

CRK, I'd love to know why you say I'm racist.

The reason I deleted the question before is that I could see that I had not made it clear enough the first time. Take it easy.

2007-03-20 09:25:33 · update #1

Well played.

2007-03-20 09:41:51 · update #2

6 answers

What you are talking about is race. How we look through adaptation is race. Ethnicity has more to do with nationality, tradtion, culture and language, than an idividuals physiology.
If someone was born in Africa and they are white, they are still of european descendent, unless one or more of their ancestors was black or had a black ancestor. Then the person is considered to be mulatto or black, depending on you perspective.

2007-03-20 09:49:01 · answer #1 · answered by Time For Better 4 · 0 0

"So it follows that if a bunch of white families moved to central Africa and bred only with eachother, their descendents would eventually, after a certain interval of generations, be black. And same with black families to Norway or someplace. Correct?"

You're actually wrong.
There is no modern benefit to light or dark skin in terms of living. We've adapted new ways to cope that keep them from mattering. Just drinking vitamin D milk from a store would wipe out the adaptive benefit of light colored skin.

However, if society collapsed tomorrow, and no technology worked, and there were no houses, and the families all knew nothing about vitamin D or sunblock, then, yes, it would work, however, the light skinned people would take longer, because light skin is caused by the absence of genes.....chances are they'd never be as dark as the natives of that area would be.

Google "founder effect"

2007-03-20 16:52:04 · answer #2 · answered by LabGrrl 7 · 3 0

I'm with Lab grrl on this one but I would like to add that the climate that the Earth is presently experiencing is relatively mild. Without our technology and in a more severe climate like an Ice Age you be most likely to achieve those results. Who knows if this cycle of global warming continues whether man made or not, you may see some subtle differences develop even with technology.

2007-03-23 02:02:20 · answer #3 · answered by nreuland 1 · 0 0

This is an interesting idea, and I think you're probably right. Of course today we have technology and conveniences that reduce the impact of environment on humanity. Humans adapt the environment to meet their needs rather than adapting the the environment. Cool idea.

2007-03-20 16:35:38 · answer #4 · answered by Swedish Meatball 87 1 · 1 0

Yes I think the species as well as the genes that are passed on is and has been constantly evolving throughout time and conditions do have a factor it is only the blind that can not see race.

2007-03-22 21:04:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Good question. It has been said that this is correct. The color of one's skin is deteminate on the closeness to the equator. That is what I was taught.

2007-03-20 22:14:58 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers