This is topic O.T. George Gill : Race Exist in forum Egyptology at EgyptSearch Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003571

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
George Gill
quote:


"I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains that from looking at living people standing before me," Gill says.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Slightly over half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the traditional view that human races are biologically valid and real. Furthermore, they tend to see nothing wrong in defining and naming the different populations of Homo sapiens. The other half of the biological anthropology community believes either that the traditional racial categories for humankind are arbitrary and meaningless, or that at a minimum there are better ways to look at human variation than through the "racial lens."

Are there differences in the research concentrations of these two groups of experts? Yes, most decidedly there are. As pointed out in a recent 2000 edition of a popular physical anthropology textbook, forensic anthropologists (those who do skeletal identification for law-enforcement agencies) are overwhelmingly in support of the idea of the basic biological reality of human races, and yet those who work with blood-group data, for instance, tend to reject the biological reality of racial categories.



The "reality of race" therefore depends more on the definition of reality than on the definition of race. If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established—major races: black, white, etc.—then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans. The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity. I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people standing before me. So those of us in forensic anthropology know that the skeleton reflects race, whether "real" or not, just as well if not better than superficial soft tissue does. The idea that race is "only skin deep" is simply not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm.




Race Exist
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html



 
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
quote:
I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains that from looking at living people standing before me,
^^ Self damnation by feint self praise?

Certainly a bizarre quote, since it amounts to self affirmation as a poor substitute for affirmation from and objective external source.


The American Antrhopological Associations position:

Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
 
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
 -
Move it up.
 


(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3