Culture is predicated by environment and circumstance (which can amount to accidents of discovery and/or gee - look what our neighbors are doing thats really cool and useful etc). Nothing to do with "race"
Likewise - just because people have chosen easy distinguishers - based on skin color, hair, particualr predominant facial features, and so on and so forth - does not mean that these distinctions are scientifically valid as they are only a handful of the larger set of characteristics that make up people - obvious and otherwise...and here is where the categorizations start to fall apart. For evey attempt at binning people to fall within one "race" or another - the list of exceptions or the potential to bin in other ways becomes greater then the (perhaps more obvious but not necissarily more important/distinguishing) commonalities...and of course - at the genetic level these sets of commonalities and diversities become so great to entirely obviate the makeing of such genetic/racial distinctions altogether.
Fundementally we differ by color (lots of variation here) and perhaps some physical traits that can be more or less isolated (though not entirely cleanly - more so in an on average manner) - that can be used to differentiate smaller groups (though again one must take into account the culture - physical differences alone are insufficient IMO).
Additionally, similar cultures or cultural elements can be found in populations consisting of different tribal peoples that are widely geographically seperated and who have had apparently little or no contact. What leads to this is similarity of environment that suggested certain solutions regarding how to survive and get along. (and what distinguishes modern humans is their ability to think and adapt - not just physically - but in terms of behavior - the ability to reason and make major shifts if solutions lend themselves). Of course societies in proximity or who have established contact - even if over a distance - will naturally incorporate more similar elements (process is called cultural diffusion). Likewise - the environment effects people in a physical sense - skin pigmentation to combat UV, nostrils that are better able to deal with humid or arid air, hair or lack thereof dependent on temperature and so on and so forth. So yes, given enough time (hundreds of generations...thousands...don't know), a group of Africans (or other people) from the tropics who might migrate to Norway and be forced to survive there (without modern technology that seperates people from the natural environment) would likely indeed grow paler and show other physical adaptations to better enable them to live in such an environment (and it seems that this is in fact what may have happened)...
Sorry Barbi - but this discussion is much more interesting then the one you started anyway....
And Nune - good post above...
Likewise - just because people have chosen easy distinguishers - based on skin color, hair, particualr predominant facial features, and so on and so forth - does not mean that these distinctions are scientifically valid as they are only a handful of the larger set of characteristics that make up people - obvious and otherwise...and here is where the categorizations start to fall apart. For evey attempt at binning people to fall within one "race" or another - the list of exceptions or the potential to bin in other ways becomes greater then the (perhaps more obvious but not necissarily more important/distinguishing) commonalities...and of course - at the genetic level these sets of commonalities and diversities become so great to entirely obviate the makeing of such genetic/racial distinctions altogether.
Fundementally we differ by color (lots of variation here) and perhaps some physical traits that can be more or less isolated (though not entirely cleanly - more so in an on average manner) - that can be used to differentiate smaller groups (though again one must take into account the culture - physical differences alone are insufficient IMO).
Additionally, similar cultures or cultural elements can be found in populations consisting of different tribal peoples that are widely geographically seperated and who have had apparently little or no contact. What leads to this is similarity of environment that suggested certain solutions regarding how to survive and get along. (and what distinguishes modern humans is their ability to think and adapt - not just physically - but in terms of behavior - the ability to reason and make major shifts if solutions lend themselves). Of course societies in proximity or who have established contact - even if over a distance - will naturally incorporate more similar elements (process is called cultural diffusion). Likewise - the environment effects people in a physical sense - skin pigmentation to combat UV, nostrils that are better able to deal with humid or arid air, hair or lack thereof dependent on temperature and so on and so forth. So yes, given enough time (hundreds of generations...thousands...don't know), a group of Africans (or other people) from the tropics who might migrate to Norway and be forced to survive there (without modern technology that seperates people from the natural environment) would likely indeed grow paler and show other physical adaptations to better enable them to live in such an environment (and it seems that this is in fact what may have happened)...
Sorry Barbi - but this discussion is much more interesting then the one you started anyway....
And Nune - good post above...
Comment