[Andres]

the four major races of the world, according to the European anthropologists who catergoized people as such, are: Caucasiod (Europeans, North Africans, Middle East, South and Central Asia). Mongoloid (Indochina, North and East Asia, Native Americans, Eskimos) Negroid (Sub-Saharan Africa) Austaloid (natives of Australia, east indies and other pacific islands) Of course most of these -oids are pretty archaic by now and should be substituded with more current terms. I just wanted to explain the origin of racial classification and you can do the math to update it to today. 1st of all Spanairds ARE Caucasions (and considered White as well). 2ndly Hispanic/Latino is NOT a race, it identifies Spanish speaking peoples, decentants and cultures. According to your writing you know this already. So why are you equating culture/native tongue with ethnic background?There are Latinos who are Spanish, or Amerindian, or African, or a combo of any of the 2 or all 3. Now if a Spaniard is Caucasian, an African a Negro, and an Amerindian a Mongol, how could a Black Latino, a White Latino and an Amerindian Latino be the same race just b/c they speak the same language and share a simular culture? are you saying had they been born outside of Latin America and spoke another language they would now be of a different race, despite the fact they would still have the exact same genetic make-up? Do you follow me? 3rdly ‘white’ has only become synonimous with Caucasion in recent years. The original definition of Caucasion applied to peoples who were mostly NOT white. Arabs, Indians, Persians,… what im trying to say is that color was not originally a factor in race, but physical traits. If it was color than Sub-Saharan Africans and Australian Aborigines would both be of the same race, b/c they both have brown to black skin.

User Detail :  

Name : Andres, Gender : M, Race : White/Caucasian, Religion : Catholic, Age : 25, City : Chambersburg, State : PA, Country : United States,