Basic races of mankind?

[Stríbog]

I don't want to start another thread about where the boundaries of 'whiteness' are, because it's very subjective. I am not clear what makes Dinarics white and Armenoids not white, in the eyes of many. I do know that some racialists consider Armenoids white. I avoid the term 'white' when I can because it is very subjective and assigned hypocritically or arbitrarily. Evolutionary gradients and later mixing both result in large regions that are of debatable 'whiteness.'
My goal with this thread is very general: I want to establish what the major races of humanity are... Generally it is said there are three races: Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid. I have always wondered where Australian Aborigines fit into this scheme. Some people say they are mixes of the 3 main races, but this doesn't seem consistent with the data. The skulls are different, and the IQ is lower than that for any of the 3 main accepted races according to sources I've read.
What about south Indian/Sri Lankan Dravidics??? I've heard it claimed that they are by far the darkest of Caucasoids, but still genetically within the Caucasoid race. Some have argued that they are all partially Negroid. I know that some are 'Negritos', which I believe are east Africans that apparently sailed across the Indian Ocean to India, Malaysia, New Guinea etc. I have encountered many Dravidics, however, and the VAST majority have no noticeable Negroid features. They have straight hair, narrow, long noses, and normal lips. Are they Caucasoid?
What are the Maori? They seem to be in the same category as Australian Aborigines; I don't think they arose from simple mixing. My basic question is whether or not the 3-race system is adequate to describe the racial groups one encounters. If not, how many more races do we need to add?

[Azdaja]

I always thought Australian Aborigines were part of the "Australoid" race, which is a race in the same sense that Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid are.
I've read that the Dravidic sub-race is a Caucasoid/Australoid mix. One would assume that the Caucasoid portion is dominant, as the Dravidics are considered to be Caucasoid.

[Stríbog]

Baker's conclusions are really in accordance with the data I have seen. I see one uncertainty, though: where does he draw the line between the Asian/Mongoloid race and the 'native American' race?

[Grimr]

In John R. Baker's 6 races where do the Jews stand? Which race do they belong to?

[Stríbog]

Almost all Jews are Caucasoid. This is common knowledge, even among racialists.

[Grimr]

Almost all Jews are Caucasoid. This is common knowledge, even among racialists.

Perhaps but their origonal stock can be named specifically.

[Nordgau]

I would say, taken the Jews altogether, the two main and basic races of them are the Armenid and the Orientalid sub-race of the Caucasian (Europid) race.

Then, the Jews in different geographical areas sure have elements of other races: Jews in Europe, for example, have stronger elements of European racial forms, while Jews from Ethiopia show a stronger Negroid or Hamitid phenotype...

Originally posted by Fionn mac Cumhaill
I am not clear what makes Dinarics white and Armenoids not white, in the eyes of many.

Come to Munich and throw a look at predominantly Dinaric Bavarian Germans, and then throw a look at predominantly Armenid Turks there. Har, har...

[Nordgau]

I know a good concept of classification of the races of mankind from Hans Weinert, Entstehung der Menschenrassen, Stuttgart 1941:

Weinert makes a "main line" or middle line of recent racial forms. On the bottom of this middle line is the "dark part" of this middle line: Australians, Weddas, Weddids, Drawidas, Tasmanians (exterminated), Melanesians and Negritos. These are the racial forms that stayed primitive, not only of the middle line, but also of mankind.
In the middle of the middle line are the Ainu: more developed and not as primitive as the races named before, but also not as developed as the real Caucasians and Europids.
On the upper part of the middle line of mankind are its developed and specialized forms, its fair parts: first, the surely not primitive, but developed Polynesians, and then the real Europids from Indids up to Nordids.

This is not a real "ancestry tree", because all races are recent, existing races of today's mankind. It only says, that Australians and so on (the dark part of the middle line) didn't develope and stayed primitive in their forms, while this middle line's other parts in other areas of the world, developed by mutation and selection to "higher" and more specialiced forms, though their ancestors surely looked more like Australians.

But nevertheless, one still can see the certain common ground of the dark part and the fair part of the middle line in the phenotypical forms, compared with the two side lines of mankind: the left line: the Negrids (with Hottentotts, Buschmänner [I don't know the English name - "Bushmen"?] Pygmies), and the right line: the Mongolids (with Indians, Eskimos and Malai).

These two side lines are clear different from the middle line, they are from an evolutionary view young and specialized forms of mankind. In spite of the dark skin, the Australian cannot be together with the Negro: the Australian is from his phenotype primitive and archaic, while the Negro shows everywhere (head shape, prognathy, lips, ... ) the characteristics of a specialized and developed African type of mankind. The same with the Mongolid who is in all his forms a developed and specialized form of North-East Asian environment.

So, mainly, one can make a division between three clesar different lines of mankind, the "caucasian race", the "black race" and the "yellow race". Negroes and Mongolids are side lines quite different from the middle line, while the "caucasian race" (Europids)r and developed part of the middle line of mankind; the Australians and so on are the dark part of the middle line where there had been no or much less development and specialization than among the Europids.