Talk:Mongoloid race

Centrum99, White supremacist or Orientalist User?!

Centrum99, I suspect you are an insecure white supremacist with rather sick fantasies that the Caucasoid race is "strong" and "maculine", and that Mongoloids are weak and feminine. Judging from your fantastic, non-sensical, unsourced, and unvarifiable edits that obviously stink of twisted racial prejudice! They are full of fantasies about Indo-European, or what you call neolithic Caucasoids, and their imagined "influence" in other populations. If you were to meet me in person, you would probably try to claim that I have some kind of unknown Causcasoid ancestry!

You should be suspended from this page and seek psychiatric assistance.

Le Anh-Huy (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And I think you should at first read something about the topic. You obviously have no idea, what I am writing about. Centrum99 (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I also have no idea, where you took the claims you cite. I have never written anything about the influence Indo-Europeans on other populations. You must be a confused person. Centrum99 (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Whenever you edit on a taboo subject such as race, you run the risk of being labeled as a 'racist'. While I do think Le Anh may have jumped the gun, I would like to address why he may have labeled you as such, particularilly your edits on Asians having less sexual dimorphism. Whether you are implying that Asian men are less "masculine", or Asian women as less "feminine", those are some pretty strong accusations, albeit supported with little sources. First, you can help your argument by providing sources, especially since wikipedia has a strict 'no original research' rule. Usually the biggest subject when discussing sexual dimorphism is the male and female differences between testosterone and estrogen, so I assume that is the subject you are addresing. Since you are saying that sexual dimorphism is lower in asians, you are implying that males have less testerone then other races or females have less estrogen then other races. Lets look at testoterone, since there is little research on Asian females and estrogen. Probably the most complete study I found on testosterone differences between Asian men and Caucasian men is found here: http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/91/2/687, which cumulates there own findings, with the findings of previous studies (which honestly there hasn't been a lot of studies on, considering the controversial nature of the subject) The results may surprise you:

" Most investigators were unable to demonstrate a difference in serum concentrations of bioavailable testosterone between Caucasians and Asians, while one group, found even higher serum testosterones in Asian men compared to Caucasian men. In contrast, de Jong and Heald found a slight difference consistent with our findings. " Bioavailable testosterone, which is the amount of testosterone in the body, is probably the most important aspect of testosterone, it accounts for muscle building, aggresivness, and sexual drive, usually the only traits we want in testosterone anyway (although aggresiveness is debatable). Most studies have shown no differnce in bioavaiable testosterone between Asians and Caucasians, and one said that Asians (typo in the source, it should say Japanese, perhaps there is an ethnic difference in testosterone levels between Asians) have more. One study said that said that while the Chinese have less bioavailable testosterone then Caucasians, Chinese-Americans had same testosterone levels as Caucasians, implying that dietary factors play a role, since Chinese on a Western diet have similar levels to Westerners. Only 3 studies have said Asians have slightly less. One of these cited in the article only looked at Pakistanis (not Mongoloids), so this only leaves two. The 2 studies only looked at Asians from mainland area, not Asians living in Western nations who ate a Western diet, and even then while the differences was statistically significant, it was slight. This leaves open the idea that the studies that showed differences were due to dietary reasons.

--Jtd00123 (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Mongoloid admixture in India

The section concentrates heavily on 19th century sources positing heavy Mongolian admixture outside the Himalayas and Northeast, which is now known not to be true. Note the one modern source cited (Vikrant Kumar) confines itself to the Northeast.

Image:Rosenberg2007.png

Rosenberg's genetic clustering results (shown for N=7 here) that are already shown in Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia give a more realistic picture. --JWB (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe in the Mongoloid admixture in South India section, the article should mention that Rosenberg feels that there is negligible Mongoloid admixture in South India.----^DarkTea© 02:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The article should reflect the modern scientific position by stating it explicitly and/or citing a preponderant number of sources. Historical views should be presented as historical. --JWB (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If the article organized sources by date, it would be helpful for readers to determine the reliability of the sources. In each section, the newest and most reliable sources should come first. They should be followed by the older and less credible sources.----^DarkTea© 02:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable idea. Or, could have separate current and historic subsections. --JWB (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A historical and current distinction seems to involve editors making an arbitrary distinction between historical and current sources.----^DarkTea© 06:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Headings, if any, could also just list time periods. Post-WWII mainstream sources generally have a modern perspective on race. More recently, genetics has also provided much data falsifying earlier hypotheses. --JWB (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think genetic and non-genetic information should be divided and listed chronologically. We could make a Post-WWII distinction too.----^DarkTea© 18:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

recent change

"The Mongoloid skull has proceeded further than in any other people." "The Mongoloid skull, whether Chinese or Japanese, has been rather more neotenized than the Caucasoid or European." "The female skull, it will be noted, is more pedomorphic in all human populations than the male skull." "Mongoloid races are explained in terms of being the most extreme paedomorphic humans." "The intuition that advanced human development was paedomorphic rather than recapitulationary and accelerated was disturbing to many Eurocentric nineteenth century anthropologists." "If juvenilization was the characteristic for advanced status, then it was clear that the Mongoloid races were more deeply fetalized in most respects and thus capable of the greatest development."

This recent change is probably more pertinent and more factually correct than this:

17th century anthropologist Christoph Meiners, one of the first people to define the "Mongolian race", characterized the "Mongolian race" as being "weak in body... dark...[and] ugly". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.251.199 (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am in favor of removing the Meiners' unsubstantiated opinion that the Mongoloid race is ugly; however, being "weak in body" and "dark" are objective statements. His objective statements should be kept.---^DarkTea© 21:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)