DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Australoids, Melanesians, Negritos, Papuans, Orang Aslis, Tasmanians, Veddoids, etc.

**Qzmsdoem** · 05-25-2012, 01:57 PM

Good point. Naming someone according to tribe is the better way of doing things for me but I understand that this isn’t an option for everyone.

What I am less happy with though, is when people think that all Australoids have to look a certain way. What comes to thought in most people’s minds at the mention of the term is either some Indian Tribal people group or a picture of a group of Australian aboriginal children sitting somewhere out there in the Australian desert.

If people are adamant in their minds that this be the Australoid-look, than why not go ahead and cut out Australomelanesia from the spectrum? This is because the Melanesians really do mess up the 'standard' Australoid phenotype. They don’t just mess up the Australoid spectrum, in some ways they are also messing up other things pertaining to race and phenotype on a wider scale.

Take a look at the photos I posted about New Guinea. http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...t=31997&page=2

How many of these people would pass/qualify in the minds of most people as being Australoid ? Some would I guess, but I doubt all of them could. None of the photos are mixed people; but that is just the way we look. We have looked this way for thousands of years and are not some recent triracial or biracial mix. We had this look when the Europeans where still not yet out of Africa and we looked this way when the Chinese forbearers were still milking yaks in Mongolia.

An everyday example would be when I am outside of Oceania: nobody (except my own people), I repeat nobody ever gets my ethnicity correct. I have to fight to be an Australoid because people think that if you do not look close to an Australian Aboriginal than you cannot make the cut. It’s crazy because I am as pure as it comes.

So where would I fit? In the other three groups? Nope, I fit under the Australoid umbrella. That umbrella really needs fixing as has been suggested but before that happens; the world must know that we range a lot in looks - and I mean a whole lot when you honestly including Melanesians/Papuans/Oceanians.

I guess the closest would be Asian but they are still are not the same as us.

Look at my avatar: 100 % Australomelanesian child – I guess that is also another example of a spanner being thrown into the ‘Australoid phenotype’ works isn’t it?

*******

I think maybe the reason why the Australoid category is so diverse is because Australoids evolved in their own direction for a very,very long time(first out of Africa,anyone?).They also partially helped give birth to the East Asian,Indian subcontinental, and Southeast Asian races today.But there has to be something that connects all these Australo Melanesian groupings together and distinguishes them.I notice the non stereotypical "Australoid" you post have a very ambigious,non "specialized" phenotype.But,the South Pacific and in fact the tropical regions of South and Southeast Asia is a goldmine of non documented racial phenotypes from a variety of Australoid ancestors,maybe with mixing,or not.I know there is a lot more going on than "Indid" and especially the idiotic "Paleo-Mongoloid".

Btw,what are you taken as outside of Oceania or by people unaware of Oceanians?I recall your photos from a while back,and over here(the Americas) you would probably be mistaken as "Hispanic" of Caribbean or South American origins(the terms Zambo and Triracial come to mind),by people unaware of Oceanians.

05-25-2012, 01:57 PM	#4
Qzmsdoem Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 482 Senior Member	Good point. Naming someone according to tribe is the better way of doing things for me but I understand that this isn’t an option for everyone. What I am less happy with though, is when people think that all Australoids have to look a certain way. What comes to thought in most people’s minds at the mention of the term is either some Indian Tribal people group or a picture of a group of Australian aboriginal children sitting somewhere out there in the Australian desert. If people are adamant in their minds that this be the Australoid-look, than why not go ahead and cut out Australomelanesia from the spectrum? This is because the Melanesians really do mess up the 'standard' Australoid phenotype. They don’t just mess up the Australoid spectrum, in some ways they are also messing up other things pertaining to race and phenotype on a wider scale. Take a look at the photos I posted about New Guinea. http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...t=31997&page=2 How many of these people would pass/qualify in the minds of most people as being Australoid ? Some would I guess, but I doubt all of them could. None of the photos are mixed people; but that is just the way we look. We have looked this way for thousands of years and are not some recent triracial or biracial mix. We had this look when the Europeans where still not yet out of Africa and we looked this way when the Chinese forbearers were still milking yaks in Mongolia. An everyday example would be when I am outside of Oceania: nobody (except my own people), I repeat nobody ever gets my ethnicity correct. I have to fight to be an Australoid because people think that if you do not look close to an Australian Aboriginal than you cannot make the cut. It’s crazy because I am as pure as it comes. So where would I fit? In the other three groups? Nope, I fit under the Australoid umbrella. That umbrella really needs fixing as has been suggested but before that happens; the world must know that we range a lot in looks - and I mean a whole lot when you honestly including Melanesians/Papuans/Oceanians. I guess the closest would be Asian but they are still are not the same as us. Look at my avatar: 100 % Australomelanesian child – I guess that is also another example of a spanner being thrown into the ‘Australoid phenotype’ works isn’t it? ******* I think maybe the reason why the Australoid category is so diverse is because Australoids evolved in their own direction for a very,very long time(first out of Africa,anyone?).They also partially helped give birth to the East Asian,Indian subcontinental, and Southeast Asian races today.But there has to be something that connects all these Australo Melanesian groupings together and distinguishes them.I notice the non stereotypical "Australoid" you post have a very ambigious,non "specialized" phenotype.But,the South Pacific and in fact the tropical regions of South and Southeast Asia is a goldmine of non documented racial phenotypes from a variety of Australoid ancestors,maybe with mixing,or not.I know there is a lot more going on than "Indid" and especially the idiotic "Paleo-Mongoloid". Btw,what are you taken as outside of Oceania or by people unaware of Oceanians?I recall your photos from a while back,and over here(the Americas) you would probably be mistaken as "Hispanic" of Caribbean or South American origins(the terms Zambo and Triracial come to mind),by people unaware of Oceanians.
	Quote