Talk:Mongoloid race/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

new minor changes

Forensic anthropologist Caroline Wilkenson says Mongoloids feature "absent browridges". Moreover, Mongoloid skulls are the most gracile in the human family. It is believed that the Mongoloid skull type is a very recent evolutionary development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.61.183 (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

CHANGES PLEASE DISCUSS

Mongoloids are distinguished by their non-projecting noses, flat faces formed by forward projecting cheekbones, round eye orbits, shovel-shaped incisors, and complex cranial sutures, flattened chins, elliptic dental archs and brachycephalic skulls. They also possess wormian bones at a higher frequency than other ethnic groups. With some few exceptions, they are also known to maintain oblique palpebral fissures in adulthood, also known as epicanthal folds; although this trait is universally present in all humans during some period of their development, epicanthal folds usually disappear when the bridge of the nose begins to elevate among individuals of other races. The vast majority of Mongoloids have straight black hair, dark brown eyes, and the skin colour may vary between very pale to dark brown, though mostly yellowish. Mongoloids also are characterized by an absence or thinly distributed facial and body hair, and lesser sweat glands. The width between the eyes is greater in Mongoloids and they have the least mandible projection. Far East Asians tend to have shorter limbs relative to their torso length than South East Asians, although they tend to have bigger bodies.[29] Traits may vary, because of climatic variance and racial admixture within certain groups.

The feature section "needs" to be reworded

"...creatures so incontrovertibly ugly and repulsive as the ordinary specimens of the Mongolian race..." --Is this really necessary??

Incorrect South Mongoloid

The article sited does not support what the paragraph says. Southern mongoloids are NOT south east asian. South East Asians are mainly Austronesia (Dravidian migration). Of course many have intermarried with Mongoloids ie. Chinese traders. Intranetusa 20:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Austronesian is a language family. No theories I have ever seen identify its present or past speakers as Dravidian or South Asian. Current consensus is that its original speakers came from Taiwan or South China. A revisionist theory by Stephen Oppenheimer is that it developed in place in Pleistocene Sundaland. --JWB 03:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

blatant point-of-view

"Other nomenclatures were proposed, such as "Mesochroi",[8] but Mongoloid was widely adopted"

Wisely? This is blatantly opinionated!

Try reading it again! Paul B 21:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

--That was funny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.169.163 (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

mongolia?

mongoloids are the peoples originating from mongolia. duh. information technology wasn't too advanced in the 19th c, sure, and concepts of racial heritage were different then from what we enjoy today, so you can't exactly blame people like the author of _Observations on the Ethnic Classification of Idiots_ for advancing anti-asian ideas, but their tacky and antiquated racism should at best be a subheading in the discussion of peoples of mongolian heritage. and downs syndrome? wtf?

article quality

This article needs to be improved like the Negroid article, or alternately merged into Asian (people) like Caucasoid was. I have removed some unreliable internet sources(Geocities kook websites used as references by certain editors), but the other internet sources cited in the article need to be replaced. The entire article seems to be reflecting the opinion of one editor.　 -Pravit 18:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

southern mongoloid

This section needs some clean up. First, southern mongoloids designates not only Filipinos, Malays and Indonesian but southern Chinese, Thais, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Burmese and most tribes in Southeast Asian and Eastern India. I don't think the add about Vietnamese being of east Asian origin is needed because the section is not about southeast Asia but southern mongoloid. Two completely different things. Mediterranean Caucasoid don't only include Mediterraneans but also Arabians and Indians. Its not about location. CanCanDuo 22:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This article should change its name

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) says that the term most used by the group itself should be used to name articles. A Yahoo search showed that the search term "Mongoloid people" got 26,700 hits while "Mongoloid race" got 2,810 hits. Alternatively, a google search for the term "Mongoloid people" got 964 hits while "Mongoloid race" got 17,400 hits. If these are summed together, then the search term "Mongoloid people" gets a total of 27,664 while "Mongoloid race" gets a total of 20,210 hits. Since the term "Mongoloid people" is 37% more frequently used than "Mongoloid race", this article's name should be changed to "Mongoloid people".----^DarkTea 14:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

More misrepresentions of policy. This policy refers to self-defning ethnic labels, not technical categories. Most "Caucasoids" don't call each-other that either. Paul B 15:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at the wrong section of that policy. Wikipedia:Naming conventions is the right policy. Here is the right quote, "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists. " If most of the search results are for Mongoloid people, then that is the title which is common to readers.----^DarkTea 15:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This makes no sense. A simple listing of google hits has no relevance. By that logic we could change "Baltic race" to "Baltic people" because it gets more hits, but the point is that it is a racial category we are talking about. The title reflects the meaning. The number of hits is only relevant if they are talking about the same thing. In any case you haven't even done it right. You have simply juxtaposed the terms, so you get all pages with both "mongoloid" and "people" in them - even if they are not even conjoined. If you do a search for conjoined words with double inverted commas you get more for mongoloid race [1] than mongoloid people [2] - almost twice as many. This whole argument is an absurdity born of your obsessions. Why do I keep having to check your so-called facts? Paul B 23:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What he said. Plus, Yahoo and Google hits are different and should not be summed. --Lukobe 06:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I was wrong to accuse DT of not using inverted commas. I misunderstood a passage in her post. However, since Yahoo and Google do give such massively disparate results, it does indicate that such counting methods are inappropriate. In most cases it is clear that "Mongoloid people" simply means people who fit the racial category "Mongoloid". There's no reason why this page should not just be called "Mongoloid", which currently redirects here. Paul B 11:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This argument sounds like proof by assertion without relevance to real policy issue. You claim the search results for "Mongoloid people" really return the search results for "Mongoloid race", but the search results for "Mongoloid race" also return the results for "Mongoloid race". You have not backed up this assertion, yet the relevance of this assertion elludes me. If the "general audience" uses the term "Mongoloid people" for the concept of "Mongoloid race", then by Wikipedia:Naming conventions the term "Mongoloid people" should be the title, "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists. "----^DarkTea 05:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

TYhe word is "eludes". There is no evidence that any general audience does as you claim. The only evidence you have provided is that two words are conjoined in various webpages. Paul B 06:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

My "evidence" that you grudgingly acknowledge exists is sufficient to show my conclusion. Quite contradictory aren't you. First, you claim "there is no evidence", then you remember the "only evidence" I have provided. This powerful piece of evidence, in fact, clearly shows that the general audience prefers the term "Mongoloid people" over "Mongoloid race", simultaneously showing that by Wikipedia:Naming conventions "Mongoloid people" should be the rightful name for this article. After a complex process of search engine algorithms and thousands of independent bloggers and webmasters choosing the term "Mongoloid people" over "Mongoloid race", we have the end result of our inquiry -- 37% more hits for the term "Mongoloid people" over "Mongoloid race".----^DarkTea 21:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not contradicted myself at all, while you have filled this page with nonsense. All you have done is conjoin words and tot them up. You may as well argue that we should rename the article Mongolians because that get more hits. You need to address the meaning to communicate to readers. That's what the policy says. Paul B 21:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that we should focus on the meaning. You raise the proposition that the term "Mongolian" and "Mongoloid" are synonymous, but this is false. The former refers to a demonym or an ethnic group while the latter refers to a contentious racial concept. The difference here is the meaning of the words. In a policy sense, the concept of meaning is the core issue here. In an attempt to clarify policy for you, the meaning of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions is that the common term for the same concept is prefered over a rarely-used technical term. In this case, the term "Mongoloid people" has been shown to be prefered over the term "Mongoloid race" by the audience at large, making it the rightful name for this article.----^DarkTea 02:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You can repeat it till you are blue in the face, but you still haven't shown any such thing. All you have done it tot up hits with no analysis. The naming conventions are about achieving clarity of communication. Paul B 03:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Many of the hits for "Mongoloid people" are not for the race as a whole, but individual peoples with Mongoloid characteristics. "Mongoloid peoples" gets an almost equal number of hits (981 vs. 1010) and all of those are talking about one or more of a number of peoples rather than the race as a unit. If combined, a majority of references are to the idea of multiple peoples.

Mongoloid is not a demonym that national groups apply to themselves. It is an anthropological term. "Mongoloid race" is in line with the anthropological use. Arguably, most older anthropological work is steeped in assumptions of European superiority, as well as plain errors, but this is a problem of the work itself, and anachronistically substituting nonequivalent current terminology does not get rid of it, but just confuses the issue. If anything, updating older racist work with modern terminology may legitimize it. --JWB 20:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Debate

Debate moved from Japheth page

It is relevant because the "Japhetites" have historically been tied to models of race - in particular to modelling of racial distinctions tied to Biblical genealogies. Your edit summary was a pack of piffle. Coon did not believe that Mongoloids were "less evolved". In fact in the Origin of Races he has a picture of the "Alpha and Omega" of human populations - with an Aboriginal Australian on one side and a Chinese professor on the other, putting the Chinese professor as the "Alpha" of human development! Coon did not even create the category. All he did was add "..iod" to the endings of prexisting categories (Caucasian/Mongolian/Negro to Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Negroid). The term was almost universally accepted by anthropologists, and used in the Enclyclopedia Britannica, so your citing of WP:RS is both spurious and, I suspect, disingenous. It's treated as an historical category by the EB now, but it's also still used literally in their Nepal article. It's also still widely used in anthropological literature, as you well know, since the fact has been many times pointed out to you. Paul B 10:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

When Coon refered to some trans-Caucasoid/Mongoloid peoples as retaining forms of a lower Mongoloid stage of evolution, he stated in the same breath that Mongoloids are less evolved than Caucasoids. Your "Alpha Omega" example only shows he considered Mongoloids to be better than Australoids, further backing my assertion that he is a non-reliable source. I contend that he did make the term "Mongoloid". You say that he merely added the "-oid" suffix to the term Mongolian, retaining the original concept. If the people before Coon wanted to racialize the term "Mongolian" and not use a different word, then it's their fault. They incorrectly used the term "Mongolian". On the contrary, Coon created a new idea when he devised the "Mongoloid" race. Since Coon made the term, he is still the source, irreparably attaching the "less evolved" standing he gave it regardless of continued usage. Any complete Enyclopedia will link the term to him, granting him definitive authority.----^DarkTea 11:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

In forensics, it may also be used to guess ancestry based on skull shape, but I did not remove the term from the forensics articles. Notice, I only removed the term from the articles about the ethnic groups.----^DarkTea 11:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the Alpha and Omega image refers to human populations as a whole, not a contrast of Australoids and Mongoloids. Read the book. You have not quoted any passage from Coon saying that Mongoloids are "less evolved" in some way, only referred - without any reference - to a supposed passage in which he claims that some "trans-Caucasoid/Mongoloid peoples" retained some features of a "lower stage" (your words, not his). Frankly, this sounds like a twisting of an argument that a transitional population retains earlier stages of features that were later fully developed in the type. However, since you don't quote the passage, it's almost impossible to say. Nor have you demonstrated that he created a new category - you just assert it with no argument whatever. Anyway, the originator of a term or concept does not determine its established meaning, not does the term become invalidated in some way if some of the originator's ideas are later rejected. Usage defines meaning. Many established terms have been created by people some of whose theories are now rejected. That's progress. The term Hysteria is not determined by ancient Greek theories about womb-movements. Paul B 11:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at this quote, "Has probably assimilated some evolved mongoloid, but owes its partly mongoloid appearance more to the retention of an early intermediate evolutionary condition"[3]. I suppose "early" may not mean lesser, but given Coon's character described by Bindon, I conclude my interpretation is correct. Bindon, an expert, described Coon as believing in "racial superiority".[4] Secondly, I did make an argument that Coon devised the term "Mongoloid"; I did not merely assert this belief. My argument rested on him creating a new term, so he could have definitive authority. Coon's category has not significantly changed in scope, making it practically the same. This means that it is the same definition unlike the hysteria example you gave which has changed in definition. Since it has retained its definition, Coon's ascription of racial inferiority is inextricably tied to it because his definitive authority has not been challenged.----^DarkTea 12:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The quotation says nothing about Mongoloids being "less evolved" - indeed it refers to "evolved Mongoloid"s, which means nothing more than that fully Mongoloid features evolved from some earlier stage - a view that even modern researchers would not deny, unless you want to deny evolution itself. The passage means, essentially "this group probably gets its looks partly because it mixed with some modern mongloid populations, but mainly because it it retained some features from a proto-Mongoloid population". It would be a wild misinterpretation to give it the meaning you suggest. Coon's "definitive authority" is non-existent because the categories already existed. All he did was popularise slight variations in nomenclature that helped to avoid confusion between phenotypical and ethnic categories. There are numerous examples in history of nomenclature that exists independently of its creators. e.g Oxygen ("acid-former") took its name from the totally false belief that it was contained in all acids. I don't see you trying to eliminate the word "oxygen". That's irrelevant, as is that fact that the person who first describved it was an alchemist, whose theories are now thoroughly discredited. That's how science develops. It's not like religion. There are no sacred texts. Paul B 15:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that Coon is a racial supremacist who believes some races had less evolved IQs, culture, and physical features cite, it is clear what he meant by earlier evolution. Of course, he did not deem Mongoloids as earlier/inferior/primitive in evolution as other races, but that is besides the point. Secondly, his slight variations in nomenclature from ethnic groups created new terms. Previously, other people were using Mongolian the wrong way. In discontinuing that practice and creating a new term, he had definitive authority in its definition. Of course, oxygen is real, so it cannot change, but religious truth and racial truth are imaginary. By the very subjective nature of his racial definitions, he has definitive authority and he cannot be proven wrong.----^DarkTea 16:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are so utterly devoid of anything resembling logic it is virtually impossible to disuss the matter with you. Your interpretation is pure OR and completely fantastical. Even your own citation refers to "Europeans and Asians" achieving superiority, completely contradicting your claims. It also quotes Coon saying that this was due to occupying advantageous geography. Your reference to WP:RS is spurious since Coon is not being quoted as a current authority. Yes, Coon was a man of his time and, yes his thinking (which of course evolved over the course of his career) is full of assumptions that are now obsolete, including claims about innate differences between races. No-one disputes that. It's just irrelevant to the claims you are making. Paul B 12:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree with you, mutually acknowleding Coon's OR. Coon made OR when he invented the Mongoloid concept. Furthermore, Coon made OR when he ascribed them a less evolved designation. Coon's OR considered Mongoloids superior to non-Caucasoid races, exposing his fantasy of hierarchial evolution and Caucasoid supremacism. There is a lot of fantasy swimming amid this conversation, so I couldn't agree with your stance more. Coon lived in a fantasy world, but I have to disagree with you at this junction, realizing that we as editors must live in the world governed by Wikipedia policy. Unfortunately, his fantasies of racial evolution and inferiority make him not meet the WP:RS requirements.----^DarkTea 12:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Coon is allowed to have "OR". The rule does not apply to sources, only to the opinions of editors! You repeatedly state that he said that Mongoloids were "less evolved" despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your inability to produce a single passage in his writings to support your claim - even citing Binon's presentation which entirely supports what I said, including the Alpha and Omega image.[5] Coon was a major authority in his day. It is childish to say he lived in a "fantasy world". Of course his theory of multilocal evolution from erectus is now discredited, and wasn't very popular even at the time.[6] Many theories that seemed plausible at one time have now been discredited. The nomenclature is not dependent on the theory. Paul B 12:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there were many racist theories in Coon's OR, making him not WP:RS. There are respectable theories and there are far-flung "theories". Proper theories are an exclusive group, including many respectable scientists and philosophers. On the contrary, there are theories made by kooks whose imaginative delusions never see publication. I know that you're going to say in defense that Bindon recently revived Coon's work, but this was only to dissect it and thouroughly discredit it. In fact, Bindon, the expert, described Coon as a racial supremacist with some races being alpha (first letter of Greek alphabet, equivalent to "A") and omega (last letter of Greek alphabet, equivalent to "Z"). Coon's day is done, so get over it; racial hierarchies and multilineal evolution are no longer considered scientific. There is little truth you can muster to show that there is a natural hierarchy of races although you may try in vain, pushing Coon as the godsend witness for these abhorant beliefs. Fortunately for our sakes, WP:RS says that racial extremists like Coon must be confined to their own article.----^DarkTea 05:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you read? "Coon's day is done". No-one believes in multi-local evolution from erectus. I've already said that, god-knows how many times. That fact does not justify any of your numerous factual errors and misrepresentations. Where does Bindon describe Coon as a "racial supremacist"? Not in the document you quote. In what way is he "reviving" him? He's summarising various racial theories of the past, not reviving anyone. Why do you make things up? How many times does one have to repeat the fact that Coon is not being quoted as a current authority, but as a scientist of the past whose theories are described in the same way that Blumenbach's, Huxley's, Cuvier's, and Hooton's and any others are. Paul B 06:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, Coon's day is done, although you may disagree. Running to his defense, you argue that Bindon's claim that Coon believed in racial superiority is totally different from a claim of racial supremacy. Excuse me if you will, but I concluded that someone who believes in racial superiority must at least hold one or more race supreme to others, describing a racial supremacist in effect. Now, you may not see this fine point, but they are virtually the same concept. Racial supremacists like Coon whether historical or current may only be WP:RS in the articles about themselves.----^DarkTea 20:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Coon believed that Europeans and Asians had developed from Erectus to Sapiens earlier than other races, and therefore had achived a (possibly temporary) superiority. Is this true? Of course not. Who cares? This is not about who is right, it is about who said what when; why they said it and what the current mainstrean opinion is. Suprematism is the belief that one group deserves to be supreme. It is quite different from the view that there are de facto differences. Paul B 21:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Bindon claims Coon believed in racial superiority, making Coon not WP:RS. According to Bindon, the expert, Coon didn't believe in a possibility of superiority; Coon definitely believed some races were superior to others. Moreover, Coon believed in real or de facto if you will racial differences, ordering races in a hierarchy by these differences. Due to Coon believing in racial supremacy, he is not WP:RS which excludes racist sources in articles that are not about their person.----^DarkTea 02:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Believing in racial superiority has nothing to do with WP:RS. People are not excluded on the basis of whether or not their opinions are PC. A reliable source is someone published by a respectable publisher, peer-reviewed etc. If a believer in racial superiority is published by respectable jourals then he is a reliable source, whether you like it or not. However this is really beside the point. You still haven't taken on board the fact that Coon is not being quoted as a current source. WP:RS only applies to current sources, not historical ones which are being quoted as evidence about what an influential individual believed, or what was normative science at the time. Paul B 03:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article certainly needs a cleanup. The seemingly pathological marking of many wholly uncontroversial statements as potential OR is tiresome, and I would plead for common sense here. One important note regarding the controversy above. It has been repeatedly claimed by DT that Carleton Coon invented the term, and that therefore if some significant aspects of Coon's theories are invalidated then the term is too. I think that's a non sequitor in any case, but having quickly looked at the history of the term, it seems to date back at least to Thomas Huxley, long, long before Coon, and is discussed in literature of the 1880s. An article in the 1886 vol of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland (p.304) proposes renaming "Professor Huxley's Mongoloid division" as the "Mesochroic" race (that one never caught on, needless to say). Paul B 13:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Physical anthropology

As of May 22, Dark Tea has removed almost all physical anthropology information from the article and removed physical anthropology terms as jargon, even something as commonly known as epicanthic fold.

As I see it, the subject of this article is the technical term used in anthropology, and similarly technical terms normally used with it are not at all out of place.

As Dark Tea and others have pointed out, Mongoloid is inappropriate and offensive when applied to race as a social or political phenomenon. This is all the more reason for this article to stick to the technical use of the term, and mention race in the social sense only to make clear it is out of scope, referring inquiry to the appropriate articles on race in the social sense. Instead, the article seems to be moving in the opposite direction, becoming a short and dumbed-down article on race in general.

Rather then immediately reverting, I would like to discuss and come to an agreement here. --JWB 18:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Now you are arguing that skeletal data belongs in Forensic facial reconstruction, not here.

The "Mongoloid" concept is almost entirely about physical anthropology, primarily skeletal data, in the late 19th and early to mid 20th centuries. It is not about present-day ethnic groups, as explicitly stated in the article and apparently agreed by all. It is not about racial concepts prior to the late 19th century, which were discussed using different terms.

You repeatedly expunge almost all actual data from the article. If you feel documentation of the concept is inappropriate, the proper thing to do is to AfD the article, instead of unilateral creeping deletion. --JWB 06:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the Indigenous peoples of the Americas?

Although the indigenous peoples of the Americas are somewhat distinct from East and Southeast Asian mongoloids, the term mongoloid has been used to describe the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Why hasn't this been mentioned? Zachorious 23:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

American Indians are their own race. They are not Mongoloid with East Asians.----^DarkTea01:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dark Tea on this. The migration of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas, to the Americas, predates the notion of "Mongoloid" and a distinct genetic/phenotypical East Asian racial classification. This can be seen in many factors, such as blood type, etc. Padishah5000 20:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's one major POV, but other major ones deserve to be mentioned. --JWB 06:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

They are Mongoliod according to most uses of that classification system. Paul B 15:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Paul on this. The migration across the Bering Land Bridge occurred long after the basic Mongoloid/Negroid/Caucasoid racial branches emerged. LordAmeth 17:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, two recent ideas are that there were both non-Mongoloid (Pre-Siberian American Aborigines) and Mongoloid migrations to the Americas; and that the cold-adapted Mongoloid phenotype evolved in Beringia spanning both Asia and North America during the last Ice Age, then spread south in both continents. --JWB 21:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As for classification, three-race and five-race systems have both been quite popular. The former lump Americans with Mongoloids, the latter usually do not. There is no scientific consensus that one is better than the other. --JWB 21:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not the indigenous peoples of the Americas are mongoloid or not, it should at least be mentioned that many classifications to lump the natives of America with the rest of the Mongoloid race. And then afterwards you can type a criticism to the classification system. Zachorious 05:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not an expert on the matter, but i would certainly think common sense suggests that American Natives may and have been classified as Asiatic/ Mongoloid. They migrated from eastern Asia to America only 15,000 years ago, well after Mogoloids differentiated into such. Secondly, we can clearly see Asiatic features in their phenotype. ANy genetic differences between modern Asians and Native Americans can be attributed to founder and bottle-neck effects Hxseek (talk) 08:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Since the current prevailing theory still suggests that The American Natives originated from East asia/ Siberia, therefore by definition they are Mongoloid ! !

Your logic is flawed. No where was it written in stone that the true definition of a Mongoloid is someone with ancestry from Siberia.----^DarkTea 23:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Blah blah blah... The ancestors of Indians came, technically speaking, from the Europoid stock and were the closest relatives of European Cro-Magnons. These two groups separated in Central Asia ca. 40 000 years ago and while Cro-Magnons headed west, Paleoindians stayed in the area of Altai Mountains up to ca. 20 000 BP. The harsh climate of that era probably pushed some of them east, and during their way along the Lake Baikal, they encountered Paleomongoloids and partly mixed with them. This mixed group then headed further to the top of Siberia, to the Bering Strait. Its current descendants are not only American Indians, but also Eskimos, Yukaghirs, Nivkhi, Selkups and Kets. In today's studies of autosomal genes, American Indians make up an independent cluster (or even two clusters). Hence they are a race on their own. Centrum99 02:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Way to be incredibly misinformed. There is absolutely no proof genetic or otherwise that Native Americans descended from a single cro-magnon or close relative. Native Americans descended from the same people present day Siberians and many East Asians descend from. The differences in physical appearance is due more to environmental adaptations than genetic ones. Native Americans, for the most part, are an offshoot of Northern Mongoloids and should be classified as a branch of this race.

--69.216.130.45 (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC) I don't disagree that Native Americans should be considered their own race (in fact, recent evidence points to a possible migration from Western Europe when Europe was connected to North America via a land-bridge). But wikipedia is about history as well, and it needs to be mentioned that classification systems in the past, Amerindians were grouped under the "Mongoloid" classification with East/Southeast Asians. And since know one has made an effort yet to mention this, I will do so. Zachorious 00:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Weak article

I have said this in the other articles, eg Negroes and Caucasians

THe articles are frustrating and undermine the larning process. THe whole 'PC' approach to learning these days is wrong

I want to read about Mongoloid peoples origin, population and diversity. The article should focus on this. Yes by all means identify the short-comings of such a rigid classification. But it should not detract from the quality of the article.

Instead this article craps on about definitions, and ends up not saying anything.

The article should be written by a real author and not some self-righteous hippie. I know there is a move away from racial classification after WWII, and race has been used to discriminate people. But this doesn;t mean that we should just INVENT an idea that race doesn;t exist when it obviously does

Look at the edit history. A lot of specific content was there, and was removed. --JWB 22:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Your characterization of the issue is wrong anonymous poster. There is not a irrefutable truth that is being covered up by "hippies". Science has advanced and racial thought has advanced to the point where the Mongoloid race is discredited. I'm sure other races defined by other historical people have been covered up by your champion anthropologists who defined the Mongoloid race. Maybe your champion anthropologists are someone's idea of a "hippie".----^DarkTea 00:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Mongoloid race is discredited? Why? Because some religious fanatics want to convince us that a blue cube is a red ball? The history of Mongoloids is still an unresolved question, because skelatal remains in East Asia are very poor. The first truly Mongoloid remains come from Neolithic China. However, both anthropology and genetics can already complete a lot of the puzzle. Centrum99 03:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm inserting a separate Genetics heading for your following text as this is a long discussion in itself and to avoid disconnecting this one. --JWB 19:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

1) I thoroughly agree. The term is frequently used, and the article only vaguely describes the characteristics assigned to it. I viewed the history of the article, and it used to be vastly superior to the current version. The current article is uninformative to the highest degree. I returned some of the old data that can hardly be deemed offensive even by the most fervently anti-racialist users, but I'd rather see more information to be put in this article. 2) Speaking of anthropologists, the current situation in this field is not unlike that in medicine several centuries ago, when a lot of useful practices were abandoned as they were deemed immoral and false, and not unlike that of genetics in the USSR, which was prohibited as well. It seems that instead of studying subjects that are objectively there, the scientists are trying to make everyone believe as if the subject is actually not there. Not only that, but they tend to prohibit the works of those who do study it. Humanophage 16:16, 9 July 2007

I agree, too. I will try to add some physical characteristics of Mongoloids and compare it with other races. 82.100.61.114 16:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Genetics

First, when you look at male and female lineages (haplogroups) in Mongoloid groups of East Asia, the paternal lineages are made up by two haplogroups: 1) "Australoid" lineage C3 prevailing in modern Altai nations (Turks, Mongols, Tunguz), and 2) technically speaking "Europoid" lineage NO that came to East Asia from Middle East 30-40 000 years ago and is distantly related to lineages of European Cro-Magnons. Somewhere in South-East Asia it soon diverged into two separate branches N and O. While N is now the main paternal lineage of Uralic and Tchukotko-Kamtchatkan groups, O dominates in Mongoloids from South-East Asia (Chinese, Vietnamese etc.) So, a Mongoloid race is made up by two independent human lineages? How is it possible? The answer lies in maternal (mtDNA) haplogroups. Here you can detect a significant maternal gene flow from the Altaian group ("C3 clan") to the "N-clan" and "O-clan". But curiously, not the other way (at least not until historical times). This well agrees with the distribution of the most extreme traits of the Mongoloid race (epicanthus, flat face, rectangular body build etc.): they especially dominate in Altaian nations, i.e. in the area where the C3-clan developed. From this I can deduce a following scenario:

China was largely depopulated by Homo erectus ca. 100 000 BP due to extreme climatic conditions and the first human remains that reappear in this area are dated to ca. 40 000 BP. They belong to Homo sapiens. We know that some Homo sapiens (Paleoaustraloid groups) may have inhabited South Asia as early as 60 000 years ago, but they probably didn't go much further to the north. The migration to China that started 40 000 BP is more probably tied with (Paleo)europoid hunters bearing the Y-haplogroup NO, who mightily expanded to various parts of Eurasia somewhere from Iran. The NO haplogroup perhaps travelled through India and diverged into N and O somewhere in southern China or northern Indochina. While O occupied south-eastern China, N dwelled between Indochina and northern China. At the same time, a group of Australoids bearing the Y-haplogroup C3 suddenly appears in the area of the Lake Baikal. I could speculate that they may have been pushed there by the NO-people, but it would be really only a speculation. However, they obviously got there independently, because they didn't "borrow" any maternal haplogroups accompanying the paternal haplogroup NO. And these two human groups were not the only ones in that area: the ancestors of Ainu bearing Y-haplogroup D (otherwise quite a mysterious male lineage that is present in Australoid-looking Andamanese aboriginals) and "Europoid" maternal lineage N9, occupied northern China and the Amur region. It is possible that these Proto-Ainus joined some Paleoeuropoid groups during their way through Indochina, took their women and then headed together with them north.

At the top of the Ice Age (20 000 years BP), the Australoids around the Lake Baikal quickly developed into a highly cold-adapted human group, while the Europoid-looking humans bearing N and O dwelled in China. The Proto-Ainu diverged into several smaller groups, from which the most important stayed isolated on the Japanese Archipelago and developed into an independent, also a highly cold-adapted race with mixed Australoid-Europoid features.

Ca. 15-20 000 years BP, the basic features of the Mongoloid phenotype must have been already present in the Paleomongoloid hunters of the Lake Baikal region. We can deduce it from the fact that Paleoindians heading from the Altai region mixed with Paleomongoloid women and brought some of these Mongoloid features with them to America. With the coming of warming, the C3-clan probably started an expansion to Siberia. Ca. 14 000 years ago, a part of the N-people from northern China expanded north to Siberia, too, and heavily mixed with these (Paleo)mongoloids - which is obvious from their predominance of Altaian maternal lineages. The flow of Mongoloid maternal genes must have continued further to the south and touched even the O-clan in south-eastern China. It was certainly after the end of the Ice Age, because the ancestors of Polynesians, isolated on Taiwan due to the rise of sea level, were only marginally affected by it, if at all (their paternal lineages consist of O and a Melanesian branch of C, but their mtDNA is overwhelmingly B4, i.e. a haplogroup originally accompanying O). Hence they still preserve a phenotype that resembles the original "European-looking" population of paleolithic China. The same is valid in the case of the Ainu in Japan. Everybody else in East Asia was "Mongolized". So, without any exaggeration, modern Chinese are actually Europoids, who "married" into the Mongoloid race. Why this racial type had so much success, that's another question. Centrum99 03:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in genetics and race myself, but the logical explanation to me is that East Asia near the Yangtze is a relatively fertile area with many rivers, allowing for the irrigation of important crops such as rice. The European continent is also extremely fertile (especially modern-day France and Germany), which would explain why populations in Europe flourished as well. Tobias Galtieri 05:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that can certainly explain the population expansion in China during Neolithic times, but it is still not clear to me, why the Mongoloid females were so attractive that their genes actually completely erased the "Europoid" phenotype in East Asia. I must look at the newest studies that dissicated the single haplogroups into more subtle lineages. It could explain the post-glacial migrations in East Asia in more detail. 82.100.61.114 16:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

1. This is interesting speculation, but of course not fit for an article unless it can be referenced.
2. Lengthy discussions that are primarily genetic history should go to a separate article, comparable to Genetic history of Europe or Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia. The Mongoloid article is more about traditional physical anthropological characteristics, although discussion that is primarily about phenotype and secondarily compares to genetics is OK.
3. Referring to distant ancestors of two or more present races as Europoid or Australoid is anachronistic. It is better to stick with a neutral term like Northern Eurasian unless there is strong evidence that the common ancestor resembles a contemporary race. The strongly cold-adapted Northern Mongoloid phenotype may have developed since then, but the other modern populations have surely also undergone changes distinguishing them from the ancestral populations.
4. It is likely that north-to-south migration continuing through history has continued to spread the Mongoloid phenotype south from northern North America, just as it has spread south from northern Asia. If so, the original colonization of the Americas may have had less Mongoloid phenotypes.
5. Keep in mind that mtDNA and Y-DNA may help trace some ancient migrations, but also reflect genetic drift and other chance factors, and do not code for any of the phenotypic features being discussed, which evolved independently and may since have become disconnected from the mtDNA and Y-DNA of earlier populations with these traits. mtDNA and Y-DNA should not be equated with race, any more than language family should be equated with race.

--JWB 19:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

As for using geographical terms instead traditional racial classification - please, save me from it! One then doesn't know what we are actually talking about. I rather prefer "Paleoeuropoid" (or "Paleocaucasian") and "Paleoaustraloid". The common ancestors of Europoids may not have had all characteristics of today's Europoids, however, all populations that are traditionally classified as Europoids bear Y-haplogroup N and mtDNA haplogroup N in high percentages. Only some populations stemming from these branches (American Indians, Papuans, South-East/East Asian Mongoloids) mixed with their non-Europoid neighbours to such an extent that the Europoid element makes up a minority or disappeared completely. Similarly, the original haplogroups of all Australoid populations from South Asia also make up a distinct branch (Y-haplogroup C and mtDNA haplogroup M). Naturally, if you want to trace human origins with the help of haplogroups, you must carefully look at the physical appearance (phenotype) and consider, if the concrete haplogroup bore its original phenotype or not. But this is a fundamental thing. Centrum99 82.100.61.114 00:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You are assuming an identification of mtDNA or Y haplogroups with contemporary races. While current populations are high in one haplogroup or another, the haplogroup branching trees do not correspond to phenotype or to genes inherited through both parents. The mtDNA and Y haplogroup patterns do suggest migration patterns followed by the women in a matrilineage or the men in a patrilineage (and even then lots of information about back and forth migration, genetic drift that was later reversed, and dead end lineages is gone) but that does not demonstrate that development and spread of non-Y nuclear DNA sequences followed the same routes and timelines. Autosomal genes that were under selective pressure could spread across mtDNA and Y lineages, while autosomal genes not under selective pressure could drift independently of the drift in mtDNA and Y genes. --JWB 05:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact, haplogroups often correspond with specific phenotypes fairly well - and especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. Sometimes they can cover the real autosomal composition of the population, but they always indicate its origin. Centrum99 00:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You gave examples of noncorrespondence yourself with C and D and can only say that they are "mysterious" - the alternative is to acknowledge that their distribution is largely due to genetic drift. Not sure what your second sentence means - it looks like you are admitting that diploid autosomal can be different from mtDNA and Y, then saying that mtDNA/Y always indicate origin, when you are already assuming that origin is equivalent to mtDNA/Y, so a tautological statement. --JWB 06:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I've added a picture that illustrates the object in question. It is clearly stated that it is from 1914, and the article states it's outdated. What's wrong with that? Funkynusayri 01:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Ahum? Funkynusayri 01:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The term is disputed as to what it is so a picture will just cause controversy. If you are truly interested in building consensus I would suggest avoiding the use of pictures.Muntuwandi 02:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Asian types in a book from 1914.

See the Negroid talk page. Image in question is on the right. Funkynusayri 02:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The picture is an accurate representation of what theorists meant when they used the term Mongoloid. Paul B 10:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi has been banned indefinitely, his old opinion should be disregarded. FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know who the Mangune and Katjinz are/were. I know Shiba are Xibe, Giljak are Nivkh, and Golde probably the Nanai. But those I really would like to know.

Dravidians are Mongoloids

Dr. Clyde Ahmed Winters, a degreed anthropologist, says Dravidians are Mongoloids, but User:Paul Barlow keep removing the citation. User:Paul Barlow says that he is not an anthropologist, but, in actuality, he has a graduate degree in anthropology and history. Although the citation I gave was from his website, he has published many books, so self-publishing not a problem. If I have to buy his books, then I will buy them. His theories are not fringe theories; they are published and peer-reviewed in Dravidian Journels. The theory that Dravidians are Africoid is quite notable and shared by Hadwa Dom,Robert Strongrivers, John Moore, Runoko Rashidi and Cheikh Anta Diop. After my enumeration of his qualifications, he appears to be a reliable source. It may be unclear on Winters' website whether he intended Dravidians to be Mongoloid or not, but it will become clearer when I buy his book. I feel that he must consider them to be Africoid, but by calling them the "Mongoloid Dravidians of India" and distinguishing them from "modern Mongoloids" he appears to consider them Mongoloids as well.----^DarkTea© 06:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Nearly every statement on the Winters page is false. Just cross-check with sources like the Wikipedia articles on Asian history. Just as an example, the "li" he refers to in Chinese indicates black hair, not black skin. --JWB 07:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Tripod and Geocities pages do not constitute reliable sources. If Clyde Ahmed Winters has published articles in respectable journals, the statements should be sourced from these journals. Theories like these are not widely accepted in academic/scholarly circles, so they should be used with precise attribution. In my humble opinion, mentioning theories of Runoko Rashidi and Cheikh Anta Diop with proper attribution is OK, but you should not mention the likes of Howda Dom, Robert Strongrivers and John Moore. Howda Dom is not regarded as a respectable scholar; he is more notorious as an anti-Brahmin/Aryan crank without any scholarly credentials, whose articles appear on Dalitstan.org (a hate site that has been blocked by Government of India). John Moore and Robert Strongrivers are nobodies; anyway, it seems that Strongrivers is talking about Native Americans when he says "Indians" (he mentions Red Indians). By the way, according to the recent single origin hypothesis, all the "races" descended from the African group, so all of them can be considered "Africoid" indirectly. 202.54.176.51 09:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Clyde Winters is a notorious fringe writer. When is Dark Tea ever going learn how to distinguish fringe from normative content? Firstly, Dravidian is a language group, not a 'race', but even if we use the term loosely to mean southern Indian peoples, it has never been remotely relevant to page on Mongoloids, since the debate - which goes back to the late 19th C - was always about to what extent the population should be classified in the categories of Negroid, Australoid or Caucasian. Winters and the other 'pan-Global' Afrocentrists is simply reviving a largely obsolete debate. BTW, Runoko Rashidilargely recanted his early claims about "African" Dravidians. Such theories can be mentioned - as fringe theories - on relevant pages, but not presented as though they are the lastest scientific discoveries from experts. Paul B 11:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

An intelligent contributor to Wikipedia could never come up with such a nonsense. Dravidians are Europoids, who spent the Ice Age in the valleys of Baluchistan and in the 4thmillenium BC expanded into the Indus Valley, where they founded the renowned Harappa Civilization. They have absorbed some blood of pre-Dravidian inhabitants of India (the so-called Dalits, who were basically mixed Europoids-Veddids) from the maternal side, and they were also influenced by Aryans from the paternal side. Today they create an independent subracial group. Centrum99 82.100.61.114 23:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Rashidi

Runoko Rashidi is a well-known Afrocentric racialist who has written many papers on race. He claims that Mongoloids originated from Australoids by some unknown process when Australoids arrived in Northeast Asia. User:JWB removed this citation with the edit summary that it had no "basis" and was almost devoid of content. What can I say? The statement I added clearly had a basis, because it was cited to Rashidi. It also clearly had content. The accusation that it had no content is nonsensical. Rashidi is an important person here because he is a black man and represents a Afrocentric world view. He claims that Western (white) anthropologists have consistently biased their publications to produce a Eurocentric world view on race. To counter systematic bias on Wikipedia, his Afrocentric views are needed to balance what he believes to be Eurocentrism in anthropology.---^DarkTea© 20:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

So being a "well known Afroicentrist racialist" makes him a reliable source is your view? You truly get stranger by the day. The statement had virtually no content becuause it was almost meaningless. Mongoloid is a phenotype. It obviously evolved from earlier phenotype(s). Rashidi is claiming that the ancestors of Mongoloids looked like Australoids. It's a rather naive extrapolation from Out of Africa, adopting the pan-Afrocentrist claim that every black-looking person in the world is part of a primal Africoid "race" from which others diverged. Paul B 21:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Rashidi agrees with Diop when Diop said, "It is the phenotype which as given us so much difficulty throughout history, so it is this which must be considered in these relations". It is not naive to consider the Africoid appearence as the primary factor in determining race, since everyone comes from Africa, making the concept of ancestry useless in determining race for Africans. Rashidi's notability as an Afrocentric racialist is without question. He seems to do research and have his work reviewed in academic journals by fellow Afrocentrists, making him a reliable source. If his views differ from the white establishment, then the white establishment may be only representing the white point of view. He says whites have biased racial classification in their favor, cutting off Africoids from one another by labeling them as different races. His work is key to countering Eurocentric bias on Wikipedia.----^DarkTea© 22:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That argument is like saying that a Nazi is a reliable source beacuse he is a "Germanic racialist" who "seems to do research" and have his work "reviewed in academic journals by fellow Nazis". Rashidi's work is only key to "countering Eurocentic bias" in the same sense that a Nazi counters "Jewish bias". The only criterion is his scholarly worth, not his skin colour. Paul B 23:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no Jewish bias on Wikipedia, but one of the goals of Wikipedia is to counter Eurocentric bias. The Nazi analogy had a poor relationship to this situation.---^DarkTea© 04:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Classifying everyone but Northern Europeans as a part of single black race is not countering Eurocentric bias - it *is* the classic European racist attitude! --JWB 05:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No, if someone were to classify everyone as part of the same race but Northern Europeans, then it would not resemble racial classifications with Eurocentric bias. Racial classifications with European bias would classify many ancient and nonexistent peoples as Europeans, but would deny that the present inhabitants of those lands are Europeans. Rashidi does the opposite. He claims many ancient and nonexistent peoples were Africoid, but denies that the present inhabitants are Africoids. In doing this, he combats the Eurocentric bias in anthropology that he believes exists. He claims Mongoloids are really Africoids with some white blood, so he doesn't really extend the Africoid race as far as you would make it appear.----^DarkTea© 02:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The "ancient and nonexistent peoples" statement is true for Nazi and other white-racist histories which have tried to aggrandize a white role in history and credit as many civilizations as possible to whites, but is not true for much other white racism which was less concerned with that particular goal. "Afrocentric" history does mirror this aggrandizement goal and strategy as you point out. Both the Nazi and the Afrocentric distortions of history should be documented as ideologies with a racial agenda, not as scientific viewpoints.

Rashidi and other Afrocentrists do classify contemporary dark-skinned people of all continents as African, but do not classify East Asians as African. (For that matter, there is also the Black Muslim view that Africans are "Asiatic"! Are you going to add this to the article?)

In the specific quote at issue, Rashidi gives no evidence for considering early East Asians to be "Australoid" but simply states it. Given that his controversial statements are often unsupported, or supported by evidence that is verifiably wrong, he is not a reliable source, at least for a science article.

Compare this to the view someone else has been pushing recently, equating mitochondrial haplotype M with "Australoid" and N with "Europoid", and on this basis saying Australoids and Europoids colonized East Asia. Here there is at least some scientific evidence cited, so it is possible to conduct a scientific discussion on the topic (which however points out the logical fallacies of the theory) and cover it in a science article. --JWB 08:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Rashidi supports the view that Mongoloids are really multiracial whites and Africoids on page 121 of The African Presence in Early Asia.----^DarkTea© 05:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

“ Because of the ethnic features of many yellow peoples (full lips, platyrrhinia, and prognathism), Diop has suggested the possibility of the Mongolian types originating from a mixture of Blacks and Whites:... it has been observed that wherever there are yellow-skinned peoples, one still finds pockets of Black and Whites who seem to be the residual elements of that race. ”

Page 121 is not included in the preview, so I can't see it. Projecting contemporary races into the distant past is a mistake; early humans may have had various features found in different races today, or features found in no present race. East Asians are not simply intermediate between blacks and whites and have distinctive features of their own. There have also been assertions that Europeans are a mixture of Africans and East Asians, which is equally wrong. Over the last tens of thousands of years there has been genetic exchange in many directions, and any simplistic hypothesis is likely to be wrong. They should not be in a science article unless they have good scientific support, which is difficult. --JWB 08:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Page 121 is toward the bottom of the book preview. There are many blank pages that space the page previews. You should look again.----^DarkTea© 18:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It still goes directly from 106 to back cover for me. --JWB 03:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I know what the problem is. I looked at the article again and it only showed three pages, but given more time the whole article loads. I think that you did not wait long enough for the whole article to load. Can somebody else confirm for User:JWB the contents of page 121?----^DarkTea© 19:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes the page is there. Just type the immortal words "wherever there are yellow-skinned peoples" into the search box and then click on the go button then click on p121 which appears below the box. The page is the openning of a chapter and is not numbered in the text. Paul B 19:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, with that search I am able to read p. 121. Still no idea what is on p. 122. The essay is actually by James Brunson, not Rashidi. The quote from Diop is not further discussed or supported on the page. The argument about the "yellow races" being European-African mixture because they have intermediate levels of melanin is specifically falsified by research in the last year or two finding that East Asians have genes for light skin color which are different from Europeans' and have evolved separately.

(It is true that Caucasoids are intermediate between East Asians and Africans on some genetic indexes, but this is correlated to geographic distance and is a product of diffusion. The same results show indigenous Australians to be maximally distant from Africans, which the Afrocentrists ignore.)

The remainder of the page is about skeletal remains. Skull shape etc. varies according to environmental influences (nutrition, exercise, pressure during infancy, etc.) as well as genetics. It also shows considerable variation within populations. Many early sites show huge variation in skull shape. I added an interesting reference [7] covering Minatogawa, Liujiang and other early East Asian sites showing this to either this article or Northern/Southern Mongoloid, but apparently DT purged it in this edit along with all the other physical anthropology discussion. (Note: Contrary to DT's edit summary, the Brown paper does not use the term "race". --JWB 05:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)) Kennewick Man is also a good example of how attempts to interpret skeletal data in terms of today's races give results all over the map. Projecting ancient remains into modern races using skull shape may be even more problematic than genetics.

Oh, don't be so hasty in your conclusions! Have you ever heard about mtDNA haplogroup B in America? This haplogroup is, technically speaking, Proto-Europoid, and its bearers had quasi-Europoid look that is largely preserved in modern Polynesians (its least mixed descendants). All inhabitans of Late Paleolithic China looked somewhat like Polynesians - and only later became Mongoloids due to maternal gene flow from Mongolia. Since Kennewick Man and his kinsmen resembled Polynesians or Ainu skeletally, haplogroup B may be a remnant of the oldest migration to America that started in South-East China. Centrum99 00:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any tangible evidence whatsoever that mtDNA B bearers had "quasi-Europoid" phenotype, or is this just extrapolation from modern populations? Same question for your next assertion, plus what does "somewhat like Polynesians" mean? If you dilute it to just mean "not as strongly Mongoloid as modern Northern Mongoloids", that's not controversial. With Kennewick Man the resemblance to Ainu or Polynesians was not close; they were the closest modern populations, but still distant. [8] --JWB 07:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Polynesians have little (in fact, actually nothing) in common with Mongoloids. Basically, they are a Proto-Europoid/Australoid (Papuan) mixture. Centrum99 82.100.61.114 03:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the Brunner essay attempts to give credit for Chinese civilization to foreigners, and is sadly imitative of similar attempts by Eurocentric writers. This stuff may be good fodder for an article on politicized racial ideologies or racialized interpretations of history, but not an article on physical anthropology. --JWB 22:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

mtDNA haplogroups M and N

Just a note, the hypothesis that haplogroup M is "Australoid" is incorrect. In fact haplogroup N seems the predominant lineage among Australian Aboriginals, making them more related to Europeans via mtDNA lineages. Of main concern was the presence, in high frequencies, of macrohaplogroup N basal lineages in aboriginal Australians contrasting with its paucity in India and its absence in PNG. If, as we proposed, N marks the northern route, how to explain its absence in southeast Asia and PNG, its natural path to Australia? On the other hand, if N was carried along with M in all routes how to explain its paucity in India and its absence in southeast Asia? Not to mention the lack of basal M in western Eurasia.[9].Muntuwandi 05:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that citation is a good example of the problems with the simplistic models that have been popular! To quote further from it: --JWB 09:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

“ We understand that the data in support of our hypothesis are meager at best. However, it explains the currently observed geographic patterns of mtDNA variation fairly well. Of course, recurring to genetic drift and lineage extinctions other stories may also fit the present mtDNA phylogeography. In any case, it is indispensable that any hypothesis can be testable. ”

N in Australia came with the "Proto-Europoid" wave, as well as some K-branches in New Guinea. After they came to New Guinea, they may have been bearers of the "Australoid" phenotype already. The process of the colonization of Australia was fairly complex. 82.100.61.114 00:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What is to say it is not a result of genetic drift and bottlenecks? --JWB 01:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Proto-Europoid lineages F (K) and N may have come to South-Asia together with C and M. But this is still debatable. The old maternal lineage in the Mungo Man makes it even more complicated. Future will tell us more.Centrum99 00:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Brown, P. 1999. The first modern East Asians?: another look at Upper Cave 101, Liujiang and Minatogawa 1

As it is lost in the Rashidi section above, I would like to call attention to the reference DT deleted from the article. It is actual physical anthropology work, it abundantly cites and discusses recent and earlier work in this field, it analyzes actual data, it gives valuable information about the little-known timing and locations of the advent of the Mongoloid type, it is in turn cited by notable scientists in this and related fields like Chris Stringer; in short, it is everything that the politicized, unsupported, out-of-field statements DT replaced it with are not. It deserves a thorough reading and discussion. Google Scholar: the Peter Brown paper, and later papers referencing it --JWB 05:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to quote Brown; I told the same in paragraphs above and in contrast with Brown, I know, why there were no mongoloids in China before the Neolithic. Centrum99 23:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You have it backwards. We do have to quote scientific sources here. Your unsourced speculations are not usable. --JWB 07:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

DT, thanks for adding back a reference to Brown. However, I think the quote you used has the opposite meaning of what you gave it. In page 17 of the pdf (page number 120 on page) of Brown99, Brown brings up the "proto-Mongoloid" suggestion, which apparently he has heard from others, and comments only "This is a far more difficult issue as no one knows what a “protoMongoloid” would look like." He is not supporting the suggestion and is skeptical of it. Immediately afterwards, he also denies that Liujiang / Upper Cave / Minatogawa are Australoid, and names Coon as one who put forward the Australoid suggestion. On the next page he brings up the possibility that diachronic change could be used to extrapolate what "protoMongoloids" might look like, but he evaluates this possibility negatively too because of the great discontinuity between Lj / UC / Mg and modern East Asians.

I will try to summarize what Brown actually concludes:

1. All populations have changed over time; in particular, similar global changes in the first 4000 years of the Holocene are well documented, suggesting that modern populations may resemble each other more than they resemble older populations in the same area. The ancient samples he reviews do not closely resemble any modern races, in his cluster analysis. There was also a lot of variation between individuals in some ancient populations.
2. There is a particular discontinuity in East Asia, where Neolithic remains in China (5500 to 7000 years before present) are clearly Mongoloid (i.e. like modern East Asians and Native Americans) and the earlier H. sapiens at Lj / UC / Mg are not Mongoloid (in Brown's evaluation, in contrast to some earlier work which he sees as unsystematic). This contrasts with other areas like Australia where there is recognizable continuity between older and newer skeletons. East Asian skeletal continuity was an argument used by Wolpoff and predecessors for the multiregional theory, so Brown's conclusion would also undermine this theory.
3. "At present the earliest people with a generalised East Asian cranial morphology are probably found in the Americas. Is it a possibility that migration across the Bering Strait went in two directions and the first morphological Mongoloids evolved in the Americas?" However, fossil evidence is still scarce, and older Mongoloid remains may well turn up elsewhere in Asia or the Americas.

--JWB 08:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Unhappy Brown... You must give him some advice. If he wants to find the first Mongoloids, he must go to Russia and dig around the Lake Baikal. Centrum99 82.100.61.114 01:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Mongoloid influence in India

The editors disputing this section are requested to give the article 24 hours and to work toward a compromise or to seek an RfC. Please take the time to cool off and stop edit warring. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Erroneous or dubious statement

"...This latter characteristic has been suggested to be an adaptation to colder climate. Another observation is the divergence of gynomorphism and andromorphism is of lesser importance among Mongoloids in comparison to other ethnic groups, generally speaking."

I must vehemently disagree. Sexual dymorphism can be very strong among Asian populations, especially those from the colder or drier climates. Le Anh-Huy (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be referenced, and should go if nobody can reference it soon. --JWB (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In Europoids (Cacasoids), women are 11-15 cm smaller than the men. In East Asian and Siberian populations, it is mostly 10-13 cm, so the differences are relatively negligible. Centrum99 (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that the Japanese, who are arguably a Mongoloid population, display nearly the greatest degree of sexual dimorphism of any modern human population. All this use of blanket terms and talk of "adaptations to a cold climate" and "lesser sexual dimorphism" is ridiculous. Mongoloid populations do not form a discrete unit and vary more than any other so-called "race" in regards to sexual dimorphism; in addition, many African (as well as indigenous American) populations display many of the phenotypical features that are considered definitive of Mongoloids, such as epicanthic folds, facial flatness, projecting malars (cheekbones), etc. The sharing of these features among modern Mongoloid populations could be due to shared retention of characteristics that were typical of the African ancestors of the Proto-Eurasian population from which Mongoloids, Caucasoids, American aborigines, and Oceanian aborigines have derived. Caucasoids (and also, to a lesser extent, Oceanian aborigines) have probably "evolved" (i.e. changed the frequencies of alleles that control the aforementioned phenotypical traits) more than Mongoloids and American aborigines since the migration out of Africa, while Mongoloids and American aborigines have "evolved" more than Caucasoids or Oceanian aborigines in regards to the alleles that control other traits. Ebizur (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What matters for inclusion in the article is whether a theory has been published by notable experts. I know the cold-adaptation theory was held by some anthropologists, but we need references. --JWB (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I could list innumerable references to this topic. Mongoloid populations are on the upper edge of the trunk index (trunk length/height) values in humans - a standard indicator of limb length. The values range from ca. 52.7% in Thai to 54.0% in Eskimos. The European average is between 52.0-52.5%, in West Africans and Cushites it is around 50.0%, in Nilotes and North Australian tribes ca. 48.0% or even lower. The decrease of limb length coupled with the increase of body size is a cold adaptation (Bergmann's rule) that preserves energy in the body. A body of a greater size, of a cubic/round shape, has a relatively lower surface area than a linear body of a small size; and since limbs are of a linear, cyllinder shape, with a high surface area to their size, they are one of the first victims of the cold adaptation. The shortening is particularly visible in distal segments (calves, forearms), because they are the thinnest and thus have the least advantageous size/surface area ratio. Thus, while people from the tropics have linear, thin body with long limbs, people from cold areas are stout, with short limbs. As you can see from some numbers that I listed above, the inhabitants of South-East Asia (Thai) have body proportions similar to that of Northern Europeans, which suggests that they are newcomers there. Their trunk index is lower than in Eskimos or Japanese, but still evolutionarily inappropriate for the area they live in. Centrum99 (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You "could list innumerable references to this topic"? Great, why aren't you? --JWB (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)