Humans have not stopped evolving, and races biologically exist

[ApostateAbe]

More infuriating was his argument that rickets from lack of Vitamin D would not make a difference because the most reproductive mouse in his lab was paralytic!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvG1ylKhzoo&feature=youtu.be&t=1h25s

 

[fromderinside]

I think skin colour can partially be attributed to natural selection, although I'm sure sexual selection also plays a major role, as do founder effects. Incidentally, it doesn't particularly well coincide with the classical "races" - some "Caucasian" (Southern) Indians or "Mongoloid"/"Amerindian" natives of the tropics in the Western hemisphere have darker skin than many sub-Saharan Africans.

There are other clear cases of adaptations (lactase persistence or heterozygosity for the sickle cell trait, for example). None of those that have been identified pattern with "races". I don't see why we should expect them to do so either: Environments vary at scales much smaller than continents. Evolution happens, oftentimes much faster than we realise. That is not an argument why "Blacks" (or "Africans"), "Caucasians", or "Asians" should be meaningful biological categories that can inform us about traits other than the superficial ones we used to identify them in the first place.

So sunlight/vitamin D absorption and malaria resistance are off the table for skin color and anemia/cycle cell respectively? I'm sure isolation contributes mightily to all these difference being persistent to our modern world travel age. The very fact there is a noticeable browning of the human population seems to put lie to whether there is a 'superiority' thing at the base of any of these 'races'.

 

[Jokodo]

I think skin colour can partially be attributed to natural selection, although I'm sure sexual selection also plays a major role, as do founder effects. Incidentally, it doesn't particularly well coincide with the classical "races" - some "Caucasian" (Southern) Indians or "Mongoloid"/"Amerindian" natives of the tropics in the Western hemisphere have darker skin than many sub-Saharan Africans.

There are other clear cases of adaptations (lactase persistence or heterozygosity for the sickle cell trait, for example). None of those that have been identified pattern with "races". I don't see why we should expect them to do so either: Environments vary at scales much smaller than continents. Evolution happens, oftentimes much faster than we realise. That is not an argument why "Blacks" (or "Africans"), "Caucasians", or "Asians" should be meaningful biological categories that can inform us about traits other than the superficial ones we used to identify them in the first place.

So sunlight/vitamin D absorption and malaria resistance are off the table for skin color and anemia/cycle cell respectively?

Not what I said. I actually called sickle cell a "clear case of adaptation". It's just not something that can be used to justify the biological reality of "races" since it's distribution doesn't coincide with "races" by anyone's classification.

So, thanks for reading again.

 

[fromderinside]

So sunlight/vitamin D absorption and malaria resistance are off the table for skin color and anemia/cycle cell respectively?

Not what I said. I actually called sickle cell a "clear case of adaptation". It's just not something that can be used to justify the biological reality of "races" since it's distribution doesn't coincide with "races" by anyone's classification.

So, thanks for reading again.

I said nothing about races. All I noted was the difference between your attributions to drives for sickle cell and color with mine.

So what do I say but thanks ......

 

[Jokodo]

Not what I said. I actually called sickle cell a "clear case of adaptation". It's just not something that can be used to justify the biological reality of "races" since it's distribution doesn't coincide with "races" by anyone's classification.

So, thanks for reading again.

I said nothing about races. All I noted was the difference between your attributions to drives for sickle cell and color with mine.

So what do I say but thanks ......

A difference you appear to have made up from thin air, in direct contradiction to what I said.

 

[fromderinside]

I said nothing about races. All I noted was the difference between your attributions to drives for sickle cell and color with mine.

So what do I say but thanks ......

A difference you appear to have made up from thin air, in direct contradiction to what I said.

The air is very clear near my computer and you clearly wrote

There are other clear cases of adaptations (lactase persistence or heterozygosity for the sickle cell trait, for example).

Obviously I reacted to that with my memory that both (A) cycle cell and apastic anemia were the result of humans confronting malaria. Since you didn't in the near term provide much on skin color I went back to my early training, late seventies, which pointed to (B) vitamin D absorption. I just asked whether these were off the table. Then I wrote after (A) and (B) the word respectively disconnecting them form any discussion about them being linked. We needn't go through all this when we actually agree to great measure we do..

There is no contradiction between you and I. You just misunderstood my asking for a point of information about the two roots for the two conditions and chose to take it another point for combat. Not necessary yano. So are anemia and vitamin D off the table as genators of cycle cell/aplastic and whiteness?

 

[Trodon]

Civilization began five thousand years ago in the Mid East. Civilization rewards superior intelligence. Intelligent men usually become more prosperous than unintelligent men.

You really need to define "civilisation" a bit more precisely here.

Civilization can have connotations of courtesy, culture, and so on. When I use the word I mean a society that depends on cities. With cities there is division of labor. Those who master skills requiring more intelligence generally become more prosperous than those who do not. During most of history prosperous people have been more prolific than poor people.

 

[Trodon]

This is relevant to racial differences, because agriculture and civilization did not begin everywhere at the same time. They began in different places independently, and spread from there.

Again, true, but rather irrelevant to anybody who, like ApostateAbe, tries to revive an essentially 19th century notion of races. Agriculture was present in Southern Europe (and independently originated in West Africa) several millennia before it reached Northern Europe. So whatever effects agriculture has could logically not translate to racial features of "Whites" or "Blacks".

The Bantu began agriculture about four thousand years ago. They began the use of iron about two and a half thousand years ago. They probably learned from the Nubians, who learned from the Egyptians. They never developed indigenous civilizations comparable to the Aztecs and the Incas in the New World.

 

[Trodon]

Evolution accelerates whenever there is a change in environment. The out-of-Africa migration 55 to 90 thousand years ago changed environments from low latitude to high latitude, so Caucasians and Asians during the last ice age had different selection pressures from their ancestors. That change in latitude would be the most relevant root of evolutionary divergence. Agriculture starting 12,000 years ago had an effect, but it is less relevant as it is more recent.

Living in a cold climate accelerated the intellectual development of Caucasians and Asians, especially Orientals. Nevertheless, Neanderthals lived in Europe during three ice ages. Fossil remains of Neanderthals, along with remains of their campsites, indicate that they were considerably less intelligent than the Cro Magnons who displaced them.

Civilization had an important contribution to the higher average iQ's of Caucasians, especially Europeans, and Asians, especially Orientals.

 

[Trodon]

Another thought, if you think 12,000 years is too short to be relevant, you shouldn't be betting on latitude in the first place. For the most part of those 55-90,000 years after migrating out of Africa, the Caucasians' ancestors probably remained confined in the Middle East - at latitudes no different from South Africa. The first evidence of anatomically modern humans in Europe is no older than 40k BP, and the populations remained small during the ice age so probably, today's Europeans are more closely related to the Middle Easterners of 12k BP than to the Europeans of 12k BP.

Agriculture began in the Fertile Crescent about 10,000 years ago, perhaps a bit earlier. As the agricultural populations grew, they spread west across the Sinai Peninsula, and populated the Nile Delta. They also moved into Europe. Modern Europeans are descended from early farmers who lived in the Fertile Crescent, and from paleolithic peoples who lived in Europe.

 

[Trodon]

What is the difference between breed and race?

In humans there are no breeds or race. The only race is the human race. The genetic differences between regions is minor compared with differences within any one region.

Thanks bilby for your comments.

Homo Sapiens is a species that is divided into several races. A person's race can be determined by appearance, skeleton, and DNA. When it comes to behavior and ability levels, there is overlap. Nevertheless, there are average differences.

 

[Jokodo]

You really need to define "civilisation" a bit more precisely here.

Civilization can have connotations of courtesy, culture, and so on. When I use the word I mean a society that depends on cities. With cities there is division of labor. Those who master skills requiring more intelligence generally become more prosperous than those who do not. During most of history prosperous people have been more prolific than poor people.

During most of the history of the history of civilisation, 90-99% of people were born into their social caste without much possibility for advancement. If anything, barbarism is more likely to reward intelligence than civilisation.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, true, but rather irrelevant to anybody who, like ApostateAbe, tries to revive an essentially 19th century notion of races. Agriculture was present in Southern Europe (and independently originated in West Africa) several millennia before it reached Northern Europe. So whatever effects agriculture has could logically not translate to racial features of "Whites" or "Blacks".

The Bantu began agriculture about four thousand years ago. They began the use of iron about two and a half thousand years ago. They probably learned from the Nubians, who learned from the Egyptians. They never developed indigenous civilizations comparable to the Aztecs and the Incas in the New World.

The Bantu weren't the first (by a long shot), and yam and sorghum certainly weren't taken over from the Egyptians.

- - - Updated - - -

Another thought, if you think 12,000 years is too short to be relevant, you shouldn't be betting on latitude in the first place. For the most part of those 55-90,000 years after migrating out of Africa, the Caucasians' ancestors probably remained confined in the Middle East - at latitudes no different from South Africa. The first evidence of anatomically modern humans in Europe is no older than 40k BP, and the populations remained small during the ice age so probably, today's Europeans are more closely related to the Middle Easterners of 12k BP than to the Europeans of 12k BP.

Agriculture began in the Fertile Crescent about 10,000 years ago, perhaps a bit earlier. As the agricultural populations grew, they spread west across the Sinai Peninsula, and populated the Nile Delta. They also moved into Europe. Modern Europeans are descended from early farmers who lived in the Fertile Crescent, and from paleolithic peoples who lived in Europe.

This has little if anything to do with what I was saying.

 

[Jokodo]

Evolution accelerates whenever there is a change in environment. The out-of-Africa migration 55 to 90 thousand years ago changed environments from low latitude to high latitude, so Caucasians and Asians during the last ice age had different selection pressures from their ancestors. That change in latitude would be the most relevant root of evolutionary divergence. Agriculture starting 12,000 years ago had an effect, but it is less relevant as it is more recent.

Living in a cold climate accelerated the intellectual development of Caucasians and Asians, especially Orientals. Nevertheless, Neanderthals lived in Europe during three ice ages. Fossil remains of Neanderthals, along with remains of their campsites, indicate that they were considerably less intelligent than the Cro Magnons who displaced them.

Civilization had an important contribution to the higher average iQ's of Caucasians, especially Europeans, and Asians, especially Orientals.

You have not presented an argument for why civilisation should provide for increased average IQs, a history of civilisation poorly patterns with race. This is not science, this is post-hoc justification of your foregone conclusions.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Evolution accelerates whenever there is a change in environment. The out-of-Africa migration 55 to 90 thousand years ago changed environments from low latitude to high latitude, so Caucasians and Asians during the last ice age had different selection pressures from their ancestors. That change in latitude would be the most relevant root of evolutionary divergence. Agriculture starting 12,000 years ago had an effect, but it is less relevant as it is more recent.

Living in a cold climate accelerated the intellectual development of Caucasians and Asians, especially Orientals. Nevertheless, Neanderthals lived in Europe during three ice ages. Fossil remains of Neanderthals, along with remains of their campsites, indicate that they were considerably less intelligent than the Cro Magnons who displaced them.

Civilization had an important contribution to the higher average iQ's of Caucasians, especially Europeans, and Asians, especially Orientals.

OK, what is the evidence that Neanderthals were less intelligent than Cro-Magnons who replaced them? Neanderthals had larger brains, did they not?

 

[ApostateAbe]

Living in a cold climate accelerated the intellectual development of Caucasians and Asians, especially Orientals. Nevertheless, Neanderthals lived in Europe during three ice ages. Fossil remains of Neanderthals, along with remains of their campsites, indicate that they were considerably less intelligent than the Cro Magnons who displaced them.

Civilization had an important contribution to the higher average iQ's of Caucasians, especially Europeans, and Asians, especially Orientals.

You have not presented an argument for why civilisation should provide for increased average IQs, a history of civilisation poorly patterns with race. This is not science, this is post-hoc justification of your foregone conclusions.

I don't agree with that explanation about civilization, either (I prefer the theory of J. Philippe Rushton). Races do differ in average intelligence, and it is probably genetic, as unpleasant as that thought may be. The evidence seems united behind it. Richard Lynn amassed IQ data of every mixed-race nation with IQ data by race ("The Global Bell Curve"), and he showed that the same racial hierarchy by IQ exists in every nation in the world, European colony or not, slave legacy or not. The theory would be significantly deflated if there was even one nation in the world i.e. where black African descendents were on top of the intelligence scales and Chinese immigrants were on the bottom. I think it is a very powerful widespread moral social dogma that creates the foregone conclusions about objective reality, even more religion-like than religion, but maybe not the foregone conclusions you have in mind. What hypothetical evidence would serve as sufficient evidence, in your opinion, that races genetically differ in average intelligence, if such evidence does not yet exist?

 

[Togo]

You have not presented an argument for why civilisation should provide for increased average IQs, a history of civilisation poorly patterns with race. This is not science, this is post-hoc justification of your foregone conclusions.

I don't agree with that explanation about civilization, either (I prefer the theory of J. Philippe Rushton). Races do differ in average intelligence, and it is probably genetic, as unpleasant as that thought may be. The evidence seems united behind it. Richard Lynn amassed IQ data of every mixed-race nation with IQ data by race ("The Global Bell Curve"), and he showed that the same racial hierarchy by IQ exists in every nation in the world, European colony or not, slave legacy or not. The theory would be significantly deflated if there was even one nation in the world i.e. where black African descendents were on top of the intelligence scales and Chinese immigrants were on the bottom. I think it is a very powerful widespread moral social dogma that creates the foregone conclusions about objective reality, even more religion-like than religion, but maybe not the foregone conclusions you have in mind. What hypothetical evidence would serve as sufficient evidence, in your opinion, that races genetically differ in average intelligence, if such evidence does not yet exist?

I'd want to see a definition of race based on genetics that formed a coherant group. Treatment of differing phenotypes tells you about different cultures, but doesn't help much with genetic groups.

I'd also want to see an IQ test that was independent of educational level generally, and a history of test-taking in particular, rather than being highly correlated with it. I'd also want to see an IQ test that didn't use measures of social conformity as a proxy for intelligence.

Finally, I'd want to see a study of racial groups that demonstrated that membership of the group was a significant predictor of an individual's intelligence.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I don't agree with that explanation about civilization, either (I prefer the theory of J. Philippe Rushton). Races do differ in average intelligence, and it is probably genetic, as unpleasant as that thought may be. The evidence seems united behind it. Richard Lynn amassed IQ data of every mixed-race nation with IQ data by race ("The Global Bell Curve"), and he showed that the same racial hierarchy by IQ exists in every nation in the world, European colony or not, slave legacy or not. The theory would be significantly deflated if there was even one nation in the world i.e. where black African descendents were on top of the intelligence scales and Chinese immigrants were on the bottom. I think it is a very powerful widespread moral social dogma that creates the foregone conclusions about objective reality, even more religion-like than religion, but maybe not the foregone conclusions you have in mind. What hypothetical evidence would serve as sufficient evidence, in your opinion, that races genetically differ in average intelligence, if such evidence does not yet exist?

I'd want to see a definition of race based on genetics that formed a coherant group. Treatment of differing phenotypes tells you about different cultures, but doesn't help much with genetic groups.

I'd also want to see an IQ test that was independent of educational level generally, and a history of test-taking in particular, rather than being highly correlated with it. I'd also want to see an IQ test that didn't use measures of social conformity as a proxy for intelligence.

Finally, I'd want to see a study of racial groups that demonstrated that membership of the group was a significant predictor of an individual's intelligence.

OK, I am doing a lot of research on race and intelligence, and maybe I can help you, but I may need some clarification on a few of these points.
Let's start with this one:

"I'd want to see a definition of race based on genetics that formed a coherant group. Treatment of differing phenotypes tells you about different cultures, but doesn't help much with genetic groups."

The science of human population genetics tends to avoid the word "race" and instead use the word "ethnicity", which seems to have followed from the odd politics in academia in the last 60 years: there has been an effective campaign to deny that "race" is biological, only cultural. Nevertheless, geneticists have found significant biological correlations among "races", but, since they don't use the word, "race," they use other words like "ethnicity" to denote these populations. It has resulted in something seemingly absurd. Among the public, "race" is biological and "ethnicity" is cultural, i.e. you can be adopted into an ethnicity or you can marry into an ethnicity but your race is the race you were conceived and born with, impossible to change. The public tends to have their vocabulary straight. But, when you use those words in science, nobody knows what you are talking about. It is a step backward. Science is supposed to be clearer than the public. Just so I can be clear, when I use the word, "race," I mean something purely biological, and "ethnicity" is purely cultural. Ethnicity of course correlates with race, but, when you are looking at genes or phenotypes, then you are dealing with biology directly, not culture directly. I define "race" as a group of organisms with a tendency of common ancestry corresponding to common ancestral geography, a group that is larger than a nuclear family but smaller than a species. Races are best identified with frequencies of genetic markers. Unlike other taxons, races are fundamentally spectral, like colors on the color spectrum, identified with gene FREQUENCIES and TENDENCIES, not absolute genetic delineations. And, unlike other taxons, there can be "races" within a "race" (i.e. Ashkenazi Jewish race within the Jewish race within the Semitic race within the Caucasian race). So, maybe you can clarify your point for me. What do you mean by "race"?

 

[Jokodo]

I'd want to see a definition of race based on genetics that formed a coherant group. Treatment of differing phenotypes tells you about different cultures, but doesn't help much with genetic groups.

I'd also want to see an IQ test that was independent of educational level generally, and a history of test-taking in particular, rather than being highly correlated with it. I'd also want to see an IQ test that didn't use measures of social conformity as a proxy for intelligence.

Finally, I'd want to see a study of racial groups that demonstrated that membership of the group was a significant predictor of an individual's intelligence.

OK, I am doing a lot of research on race and intelligence, and maybe I can help you, but I may need some clarification on a few of these points.
Let's start with this one:

"I'd want to see a definition of race based on genetics that formed a coherant group. Treatment of differing phenotypes tells you about different cultures, but doesn't help much with genetic groups."

The science of human population genetics tends to avoid the word "race" and instead use the word "ethnicity", which seems to have followed from the odd politics in academia in the last 60 years: there has been an effective campaign to deny that "race" is biological, only cultural. Nevertheless, geneticists have found significant biological correlations among "races", but, since they don't use the word, "race," they use other words like "ethnicity" to denote these populations. It has resulted in something seemingly absurd. Among the public, "race" is biological and "ethnicity" is cultural, i.e. you can be adopted into an ethnicity or you can marry into an ethnicity but your race is the race you were conceived and born with, impossible to change. The public tends to have their vocabulary straight. But, when you use those words in science, nobody knows what you are talking about. It is a step backward. Science is supposed to be clearer than the public. Just so I can be clear, when I use the word, "race," I mean something purely biological, and "ethnicity" is purely cultural. Ethnicity of course correlates with race, but, when you are looking at genes or phenotypes, then you are dealing with biology directly, not culture directly. I define "race" as a group of organisms with a tendency of common ancestry corresponding to common ancestral geography, a group that is larger than a nuclear family but smaller than a species. Races are best identified with frequencies of genetic markers. Unlike other taxons, races are fundamentally spectral, like colors on the color spectrum, identified with gene FREQUENCIES and TENDENCIES, not absolute genetic delineations. And, unlike other taxons, there can be "races" within a "race" (i.e. Ashkenazi Jewish race within the Jewish race within the Semitic race within the Caucasian race). So, maybe you can clarify your point for me. What do you mean by "race"?

Funny you should pick Ashkenazi Jews as an example of a low-level "race", especially in a discussion about race and intelligence.

One of the most obvious shortcomings of Lynn's argument (other than the fact that some of his data sources are really questionable) is the fact that, according to his data, Ashkenazi Jews in the US score about 10 points higher than Ashkenazi Jews in Israel. The only obvious explanation is that even relatively minor cultural differences between two populations that are, at the genetic level, almost identical, living in two countries with similar levels of development, can cause a 10 point difference - and if that is so, much larger differences between populations living in very different circumstances shouldn't surprise anybody and can no longer be used as an argument for a biological basis of such differences.

Also, are you serious about the "Ashkenazi Jewish race within the Jewish race within the Semitic race"? While it's correct that Ashkenazi Jews are genetically closer to Middle Eastern populations than non-Jewish groups of Central and Eastern Europe are, they're still fundamentally European, i.e. closer to European populations than to Middle Eastern ones. And what Middle Eastern heritage they have is hardly identifiable as Jewish by objective measures - They are closer to both Mizrahi Jews and Palestinian Arabs than Poles are, but pretty much equidistant from both.

That particular idea of races has been proven wrong by genetic research a long time ago.

 

[ApostateAbe]

OK, I am doing a lot of research on race and intelligence, and maybe I can help you, but I may need some clarification on a few of these points.
Let's start with this one:

"I'd want to see a definition of race based on genetics that formed a coherant group. Treatment of differing phenotypes tells you about different cultures, but doesn't help much with genetic groups."

The science of human population genetics tends to avoid the word "race" and instead use the word "ethnicity", which seems to have followed from the odd politics in academia in the last 60 years: there has been an effective campaign to deny that "race" is biological, only cultural. Nevertheless, geneticists have found significant biological correlations among "races", but, since they don't use the word, "race," they use other words like "ethnicity" to denote these populations. It has resulted in something seemingly absurd. Among the public, "race" is biological and "ethnicity" is cultural, i.e. you can be adopted into an ethnicity or you can marry into an ethnicity but your race is the race you were conceived and born with, impossible to change. The public tends to have their vocabulary straight. But, when you use those words in science, nobody knows what you are talking about. It is a step backward. Science is supposed to be clearer than the public. Just so I can be clear, when I use the word, "race," I mean something purely biological, and "ethnicity" is purely cultural. Ethnicity of course correlates with race, but, when you are looking at genes or phenotypes, then you are dealing with biology directly, not culture directly. I define "race" as a group of organisms with a tendency of common ancestry corresponding to common ancestral geography, a group that is larger than a nuclear family but smaller than a species. Races are best identified with frequencies of genetic markers. Unlike other taxons, races are fundamentally spectral, like colors on the color spectrum, identified with gene FREQUENCIES and TENDENCIES, not absolute genetic delineations. And, unlike other taxons, there can be "races" within a "race" (i.e. Ashkenazi Jewish race within the Jewish race within the Semitic race within the Caucasian race). So, maybe you can clarify your point for me. What do you mean by "race"?

Funny you should pick Ashkenazi Jews as an example of a low-level "race", especially in a discussion about race and intelligence.

One of the most obvious shortcomings of Lynn's argument (other than the fact that some of his data sources are really questionable) is the fact that, according to his data, Ashkenazi Jews in the US score about 10 points higher than Ashkenazi Jews in Israel. The only obvious explanation is that even relatively minor cultural differences between two populations that are, at the genetic level, almost identical, living in two countries with similar levels of development, can cause a 10 point difference - and if that is so, much larger differences between populations living in very different circumstances shouldn't surprise anybody and can no longer be used as an argument for a biological basis of such differences.

Also, are you serious about the "Ashkenazi Jewish race within the Jewish race within the Semitic race"? While it's correct that Ashkenazi Jews are genetically closer to Middle Eastern populations than non-Jewish groups of Central and Eastern Europe are, they're still fundamentally European, i.e. closer to European populations than to Middle Eastern ones. And what Middle Eastern heritage they have is hardly identifiable as Jewish by objective measures - They are closer to both Mizrahi Jews and Palestinian Arabs than Poles are, but pretty much equidistant from both.

That particular idea of races has been proven wrong by genetic research a long time ago.

The Ashkenazi Jews are not merely a cultural group, but they are a racial group that can be identified with genetic markers. You can get a genetic test and find out if you are probably an Ashkenazi Jew, as there are four haplogroups closely associated with them. And Tay-Sachs disease is a genetic disease that affects NOT Jews in general so much and NOT Europeans in general so much but Ashkenazi Jews in particular. They are a group that existed in Europe since the ancient diasporas, marrying and mating only with each other for cultural reasons--relatively, that is, because of course, yes, there was admixture with Europeans. You speak of "Ashkenazi Jews in Israel," but I am not sure who you mean, as the Ashkenazi Jews are defined as having ancestry in Europe. Israel has all subgroups of Jews, not just Ashkenazi. There are many explanations for why Ashkenazi Jews in particular have high intelligence (the highest, in fact), and the one I prefer is that the Ashkenazi Jews had a history of being excluded from the typical occupations in Europe, such as farming, so they were pushed into occupations that depended on high-intelligence for success, such as law, management and accounting. Sexual selection drove the rise in IQ. It is not a certain explanation but a plausible one.

 

[ApostateAbe]

To follow up, I think you have a good point that it is misleading to speak of races "within" a race, because we are led to think that "within" means "completely within" and "within nothing else." But, races are spectral, overlapping with other races, especially in cases of historical admixture. Because of the admixture between Europeans and Ashkenazi Jews, we can speak of Ashkenazi Jews being "within" both the white European race and the Jewish race. Same problems exists among for Indians. They are often classified as Caucasians, but of course they have a lot of admixture with the East Asians.