我是汉族，但我有很多白种人特征，我是白种人还是黄种人？
我算白种人还是黄种人呢？ 展开
按人类学来分，判断人种骨高度，骨构造，骨密度，以及角度都是要量化测定，才能判定的，还有一个错误是鼻梁高度是不能判断人种所属的，要看的是鼻根骨的高度。另外，高加索人种的骨构造是比较分明比较有棱角的，但尖下巴不属于其中特征，尖下巴是明显的蒙古利亚人种特征。而且，绝大多数蒙古利亚婴儿生下来都有蒙古斑（俗称青屁股），是有人类学重要意义的。而且蒙古利亚人种的人也是携带北欧基因（三大人种都有），只是造成人种差别的是北欧基因所占的比重。假如你说你爷爷就有所说的这些特征的是白种人的话，那么到你这代已经是第三代了，除非你奶奶，和你妈妈都是白种人，这种概率应该要小得可怜，所以你不可能是白种人。最多是混血人种，混血人种是不属于任何一种人种的。还有皮肤颜色和人种是没有必然联系的，发色和眼色也都是由真褐色素和真黑色素决定的。眼睛大小是由个人的眼裂大小决定的与人种无关，不是说白种人眼睛就大。就不要在纠结人种问题了。我可以100%告诉你你一定不是高加索人种。你所列的以上特征只能说明你面部较立体，比较符合现代美学标准而已。 (上图，左起分别是尼格罗人种，高加索人种和蒙古利亚人种的头骨图)
Race, identity and cranio-facial descriptionObservable craniofacial differences included: head shape (mesocephalic, brachycephalic, doliocephalic) breadth of nasal aperture, nasal root height, sagittal crest appearance, jaw thickness, brow ridge size and forehead slope. Using this skull-based categorization, anthropologists identified three or four racial groups;
Caucasoid characterized by a tall skull with a cephalic index in the mesocephalic range (Mediterraneans generally high/dolichocephalic, Dinarics generally high/brachycephalic, Alpines generally medium height/brachycephalic, Nordics generally tall-medium height/mesocepahlic-dolichocephalic), receded zygomas, large brow ridge and narrow nasal aperture.Negroid characterized by a short dolichocephalic skull shape, receded zygomas and wide nasal aperture.Mongoloid characterized by a medium height/brachycephalic skull, absent browridges, small nasal aperture and projecting zygomas.Australoid, a craniofacial type fell between Negroid and Caucasoid was added. With the addition of this category, Thomas Huxley considered India to fall in this group's craniofacial measurements.Ripley's The Races of Europe was rewritten in 1939 by Harvard physical anthropologist Carleton S. Coon. Carleton S. Coon, a 20th century craniofacial anthropometrist, used the technique for his The Origin of Races (New York: Knopf, 1962). Because of the inconsistencies in the old three-part system (Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid), Coon adopted a five-part scheme. He defined "Caucasoid" as a pattern of skull measurements and other phenotypical characteristics typical of populations in Europe, Central Asia, South Asia, West Asia, North Africa, and Northeast Africa (Ethiopia, and Somalia). He discarded the term "Negroid" as misleading since it implies skin-tone, which is found at low latitudes around the globe and is a product of adaptation, and defined skulls typical of sub-Saharan Africa as "Congoid" and those of Southern Africa as "Capoid". Finally, he split "Australoid" from "Mongoloid" along a line roughly similar to the modern distinction between sinodonts in the north and sundadonts in the south. He argued that these races had developed independently of each other over the past half-million years, developing into Homo Sapiens at different periods of time, resulting in different levels of civilization. This raised considerable controversy and led the American Anthropological Association to reject his approach without mentioning him by name.
In The Races of Europe (1939) Coon classified Caucasoids into racial sub-groups named after regions or archaeological sites such as Brünn, Borreby, Alpine, Ladogan, East Baltic, Neo-Danubian, Lappish, Mediterranean, Atlanto-Mediterranean, Irano-Afghan, Nordic, Hallstatt, Keltic, Tronder, Dinaric, Noric and Armenoid. This typological view of race, however, was starting to be seen as out-of-date at the time of publication. Coon eventually resigned from the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, while some of his other works were discounted because he would not agree with the evidence brought forward by Franz Boas, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, Leonard Lieberman and others.
Although craniofacial race categorization based on skull indices is unambiguous,races categorized using alternative methods yield different groups, making them non-concordant. Neither will the method pin-point geographic origins reliably, due to variation in skulls within a geographic region. The United States has group ancestries from geographically distant locations, which have generally remained endogamous. As more migrate and Americans become more racially mixed, such craniofacial identification is of reduced utility. About one-third of "white" Americans have detectable African DNA markers, and about five percent of "black" Americans have no detectable "negroid" traits at all, craniofacial or genetic. Given three Americans who self-identify and are socially accepted as white, black and Hispanic, and given that they have precisely the same Afro-European mix of ancestries (one "mulatto" grandparent), there is no objective test that will identify their US endogamous group membership without an interview. While this method produces useful results for the population of the United States, it is likely that it would not be reliable for populations from other countries or historical periods.
