Originally posted by Liquid Blue
Originally posted by Liquid Blue
Originally posted by Liquid Blue
Most anthropologists used to classify races by different facial features, hair types, skin color, etc. Although there was a lot of disagreement on which system of classification to use, one of the main ideas was that modern humanity descended from three "master races": Mongoloid, Negroid, and Caucazoid.
However, one of the arguments against this system of categorization is that this didn't explain the existence of the Australian Aborigine, which possessed both Caucazoid and Negroid features, but were located outside the major african and european trade routes, therefore outside the zone of genetic influence. So according to that Race and Ethnicity class I took, they said most contemporary anthropologists promote the idea of the classification of people using cultural, political, and social indicators instead of the previous idea of classification via "outward indicators" like facial features, and hair types.
Originally posted by Liquid Blue
For example... 75% of blacks and latinos in the SCUSD (Sacramento City Unified School District) read below their grade level (that's a statistic I got from the California State Dept of Education from 2004). So to stereotype blacks and latinos as being dumb, may be based partially in fact. But that stereotype assumes more than just that they didn't test well, or the educational system is flawed. It assumes that, in general, that blacks and latinos aren't genetically incapable of being good readers, which is completely false.
To answer your question, I can't really think of any stereotypes that are 100% accurate, because I think there will always be exceptions to disprove them.
Originally posted by Liquid Blue
But I definitely change my behavior and lexicon when I'm in school, or work, for obvious reasons.
Originally posted by Liquid Blue
Comment