Matthew Currie said:
Somewhere back in the stone age when I took cultural anthropology 101 they called these "stocks," and "races" were much finer divisions. Caucasoids, after all, come in all sorts of shades and configurations, from the palest blondes to the blackest of Indians, and if you were to do a poll by race, the questionnaire would be way too long and complicated to bother with.
As I recall, they actually listed a fourth stock, "Australoid," because the Australian aborigines don't seem to fit anywhere else handily.
I'm with Matthew Currie, you have to draw the lines much finer. Up until a couple of hundred years ago, your profession may have had more of a bearing on your genetics than your land of origin.
Planters and gatherers tending towards short (closer to the ground) and shepards had to walk long distances (often long legs and thin). Not to mention the trades. Sure there was some crossover, but the basic types were/are pretty consistant.
I make occasional trips to the back woods of Germany. You can spend a few hours in a village and notice pretty quick the three or four clans that populate the area. Tradition and language are really the only way you would notice they are all German. Pretty distinct genetic types.
This whole ethnicity thing often seems somewhat irrelavant and transiant when you broaden your perspective. A builder is a builder, a plumber a plumber and farmer a farmer. Genetic types would probably be more relavent. Using dogs as an example.
If a dog is built for speed, no matter what the region, most likely it's a rabbit dog, no matter what color it is or if it wags it's tail from side to side or up and down.
To take it a step further, man is basically tribal or a pack hunter/gatherer. The survivial of the pack kind of depends on the depth of talents in the pack. Some members may be quick, some with stamina, some strong and all traits necessary for a successful hunt and/or survival. A tribe of specialists or talents, which is likely the reason for much of mans adaptability.
The genetic or inherant talents and traits seem more dependant on the nature of the food supply and the climate, than the region or the social structure of the pack. Many of the areas that man has populated in recent times, have changed dramatically in the last 50,000 years (the ice age, the formation of the Sahara etc.), while the survival talents of the pack haven't really changed that much, some talents just become more relavent than others (for the short term). Some traits help survival, darker skin radiates heat better than pale, but even a very pale person will tan (if they are lucky). Some small differences in bone structure, internal organs and cosmetic traits.
I think cultural differences are much more profound than regional or racial differences. And cultural differences are less important than genetic types.
I think somebodies land of origin or ethnicity has little to do with the whole process.
