人類是否有足夠的生物學(xué)差異來(lái)進(jìn)行種族分類或亞種分類?
Do humans have enough biological differences to be grouped into races or subspecies?
譯文簡(jiǎn)介
種族——在其他群體中我們稱之為聚居地——只要我們記住，傳統(tǒng)上被認(rèn)為是種族的東西，尤其是在美國(guó)，都是無(wú)稽之談。
正文翻譯
Do humans have enough biological differences to be grouped into races or subspecies?
人類是否有足夠的生物學(xué)差異來(lái)進(jìn)行種族分類或亞種分類?
評(píng)論翻譯
很贊 ( 0 )
收藏
Races - what in other groups we call localities - just about, so long as we remember that what are *traditionally* thought of as races, especially in the US, are nonsense. Biologically speaking, a white Norwegian and an ethnic Pakistani are undoubtedly the same “race”, while a Khoisan and a Somali are undoubtedly different races.
Sub-species, no, with the possible exception of the various groups of pygmy, whose physical difference from the majority is striking enough that if we saw it in another species we probably would call it a sub-species.
種族——在其他群體中我們稱之為聚居地——只要我們記住，傳統(tǒng)上被認(rèn)為是種族的東西，尤其是在美國(guó)，都是無(wú)稽之談。
從生物學(xué)上講，一個(gè)挪威白人和一個(gè)巴基斯坦人無(wú)疑是同一個(gè)“種族”，而一個(gè)科伊桑人（位于南非）和一個(gè)索馬里人無(wú)疑是不同的種族。
亞種，不，可能各種各樣的侏儒群體例外，他們與大多數(shù)人的身體差異足夠顯著，如果我們從另一個(gè)物種角度上看它，我們可能會(huì)把它稱為亞種。
No. To do so is to ignore the vast differences in the same species.
We create subspecies when there are significant differences in two populations that, nonetheless, are still capable of producing fertile young and/or otherwise have enough similarities to still be the same species.
Dogs and wolves are the same species, canis lupus, however the domestic dog is the subspecies canis lupus familiaris. This is because even though they are perfectly capable of successfully breading, they very rarely do so, and thus have almost perfectly separated (speciation), and while they are very similar, there are differences in their biology and psychology that are meaningful; dogs, for example, don't fully 'grow', remaining at a developmental stage wolves pass through, which is why they continue to wag their tails even though wolves cease this behaviour at around 3 years of age.
I would perhaps continue this to create the analogy that different 'races' therefore more accurately breeds, but even that would be overstating it. Breeds of dog can be several times larger than others, and have vastly different phenotypes. Races of human do not have anywhere near this amount of variation; it's safe to say two beagles could be as different as any two humans.
'Race' is an arbitrary system of differentiation, and beyond that not a reliable one. 90% of human variation is found in Africa, two people who would be called 'black' could be more distantly related to each other than a white person and a Native American.
不，人類無(wú)法進(jìn)行種族或亞種區(qū)分。這樣做忽略了同一物種之間的巨大差異。
當(dāng)兩個(gè)種群之間存在顯著差異時(shí)，我們就創(chuàng)造了亞種，盡管如此，它們?nèi)匀荒軌虍a(chǎn)生可生育的后代，并且/或在其他方面有足夠的相似性，從而仍然是同一個(gè)物種。
狗和狼是同一物種，然而家狗是狼的亞種。這是因?yàn)楸M管它們完全有能力成功繁殖，但它們很少這樣做，因?yàn)閹缀跬耆綦x(物種形成)。雖然它們非常相似，但它們?cè)谏飳W(xué)和心理學(xué)上的差異是有意義的; 例如，狗還沒(méi)有完全“長(zhǎng)大”，只停留在狼經(jīng)歷的發(fā)育階段，這就是為什么狼在3歲左右就停止搖尾巴的行為，而狗仍會(huì)繼續(xù)搖尾巴。
狗的品種可以是其他品種的數(shù)倍，并且有非常不同的表現(xiàn)型。人類的種族沒(méi)有接近這個(gè)數(shù)量的變異;可以肯定地說(shuō)，任何兩個(gè)人之間的差異可能和兩只小獵犬之間的差異差不多。
“種族”是一種武斷的區(qū)分方法，它并不可靠。90%的人類變異是在非洲發(fā)現(xiàn)的，兩個(gè)被稱為“黑人”的人之間的親緣關(guān)系可能比一個(gè)白人和一個(gè)印第安人之間的親緣關(guān)系更遠(yuǎn)。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
Sure, but you won’t like the result if you are committed to older views on race.
Modern geneticists have tried to reconstruct our recent evolutionary history and development into races or ethnic groups. They typically get charts like this one, showing that most human variation is among Africans and all other peoples are a branch of Northeast Africans.
That pattern shouldn’t be surprising if you understand that humans originated in Africa and that, many thousands of years later, some of them left that continent. Scientists think that modern Europeans and Asians descend from peoples that left Africa 50,000–70,000 years ago. Given that our species originated roughly 250,000 ago, all of us have deep African ancestry.
當(dāng)然可以把人類區(qū)分開(kāi)來(lái)，但是如果你堅(jiān)持舊的種族觀點(diǎn)，你不會(huì)喜歡這樣的結(jié)果。
現(xiàn)代遺傳學(xué)家試圖把我們最近的進(jìn)化史和發(fā)展重建成種族或民族群體。他們通常會(huì)得到像這樣的圖表，顯示大多數(shù)人類變異是在非洲人之間發(fā)生的，而其他民族都是東北非洲人的一個(gè)分支。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
如果你知道人類起源于非洲，而且?guī)浊旰?，其中一些人離開(kāi)了那片大陸，那么這種模式就不奇怪了。科學(xué)家們認(rèn)為，現(xiàn)代歐洲人和亞洲人是5 - 7萬(wàn)年前離開(kāi)非洲的人的后代?？紤]到我們的物種起源于大約25萬(wàn)年前，我們所有人都有很深的非洲血統(tǒng)。
These charts are slightly misleading in that they don’t show that people from different human groups have always married each other. Some of that was due to people marrying neighbors and some was due to invaders marrying newly conquered peoples. (Or whatever people did back then instead of marriage.) As a result, there aren't many pure races or groups.
This chart depicts one people, the Yamnaya, invading Europe from the East, and mixing their genes with those of existing people or even largely replacing them. The small pie charts show the degree to which they replaced existing peoples. Invasions like that have happened over most of the world many times.
Based on modern genetics, the classic division of humanity into a handful of mostly non-African races makes no sense at all.
That guy in the lower left of this picture represents most of the world’s genetic variation. The other four guys are just recent descendants of Northeast Africans. They look different but looks are only skin deep.
這些圖表有一點(diǎn)誤導(dǎo)，因?yàn)樗鼈儧](méi)有表明來(lái)自不同人類群體的人總是彼此通婚。一些是由于人們與鄰居結(jié)婚，一些是由于侵略者與新征服的民族結(jié)婚(或者是當(dāng)時(shí)人們會(huì)去做的任何事情)。因此，沒(méi)有很多純粹的種族或群體。
這張圖描繪了一個(gè)民族——顏納亞人，自東方入侵歐洲，將他們的基因與現(xiàn)有的人混合，甚至在很大程度上取代了他們。小餅狀圖顯示了他們?nèi)〈F(xiàn)有民族的程度。像這樣的入侵在世界大部分地區(qū)都發(fā)生過(guò)很多次。
基于現(xiàn)代遺傳學(xué)，將人類劃分為少數(shù)幾個(gè)非非洲種族的經(jīng)典說(shuō)法毫無(wú)意義。
圖片左下角的那個(gè)家伙代表了世界上大部分的基因變異。其他四個(gè)人都是東北非洲人的后代它們看起來(lái)不同，但外表只是表面。
Ygor Coelho
Excellent answer! Just a minor correction: technically, considering the usually agreed upon border of Europe is in the Urals and the western Kazakh semi-desert, then the Yamnaya were an East European people/culture, for their initial range was between the Dniester and the Volga, and a bit later between the eastern Balkanic coast of the Black Sea (Dobruja and the Bulgarian coast) and the Middle-Upper Volga.
優(yōu)秀的答案！
稍微修正一下:技術(shù)上，考慮到歐洲的邊界通常在烏拉爾和西哈薩克戈壁，顏納亞人屬于東歐民族/文化，因?yàn)樗麄冏畛醯幕顒?dòng)范圍在德涅斯特河和伏爾加河之間，稍后在黑海的巴爾干東部海岸(多布魯加和保加利亞海岸)和伏爾加河中上游之間。
I have seen these people described as Central Asian but you are correct. I removed the word Asian but describe them as coming from the East.
Thanks.
我見(jiàn)過(guò)這些人被描述為中亞人，但你是對(duì)的。我去掉了“亞洲人”這個(gè)詞，把他們描述成來(lái)自東方。
謝謝。
The Yamnaya were Eurasian. During high Antiquity, The Greeks had the border of Europe set on the Don River, not the Ourals.
The Yamnaya had no conception of being European least geographically, let alone culturally.
Europe was an arbitrary definition. It didn't mean anything related to ancestry or culture or religion like it somewhat does now.
Proof is there were Greeks of Asia, and Greeks of Europe, on top of Greeks of Libya and Aegyptus.
This is all a modern invention to decide that there was “white civilisation” West of Eurasia, and something else elsewhere.
If the Yamnaya were Europeans then many people in Asia including Iranians Syrians .....rs North Indians and Mountain Pakistani are Europeans.
That's pure nonsense.
The Yamnaya were part of Europe s history. And of Asia s history, in pure geographical terms. But they were not a European people or nation as such concept did not exist then.
The only thing this post shows is that the step white Proto Indo European civilisation that was Yamnaya spread across both Europe and Asia, in geographical terms.
顏納亞人是歐亞人。在古代，希臘人把歐洲的邊界定在頓河上，而不是烏拉爾河。
顏納亞人在地理上沒(méi)有歐洲人的概念，更不用說(shuō)在文化上了。歐洲是一個(gè)武斷的定義。它的意思不像現(xiàn)在這樣與祖先、文化或宗教有關(guān)。
證據(jù)是，在利比亞和埃及的希臘人之上，有亞洲的希臘人，也有歐洲的希臘人。所謂的歐亞大陸以西等地存在“白人文明”，是一種現(xiàn)代發(fā)明。
如果顏納亞人是歐洲人，那么包括伊朗人、敘利亞人、北印度人和山地巴基斯坦人在內(nèi)的許多亞洲人都是歐洲人。這純粹是無(wú)稽之談。
顏納亞人是歐洲歷史的一部分。從純粹的地理角度來(lái)說(shuō)，也是亞洲的歷史。但他們不是歐洲民族或國(guó)家，因?yàn)楫?dāng)時(shí)還不存在這樣的概念。
這篇文章唯一顯示的是原始印歐文明顏納亞在地理上跨越了歐洲和亞洲。
Yes, of course, but since we live in the 21st century and our concept of Europe is a specific one that differs from that used by the ancient Greeks more than two millennia ago, then it’s useful to give their correct location for readers to understand where they really lived. If you say “Asia”, most people who never heard about the Yamnaya will never figure that by “Asia” what is meant is southern Ukraine and southwwestern Russia.
“顏納亞人是曾經(jīng)是歐亞人……”
是的，當(dāng)然，但由于我們生活在21世紀(jì)，我們對(duì)歐洲的概念是一個(gè)特定的概念，不同于兩千多年前古希臘人使用的概念，所以給出他們的正確位置，讓讀者了解他們真正生活的地方，這是很有用的。
如果你說(shuō)“亞洲”，大多數(shù)從未聽(tīng)說(shuō)過(guò)顏納亞的人永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)明白所謂的“亞洲”實(shí)際指的是烏克蘭南部和俄羅斯西南部。
“這篇文章唯一顯示的是原始印歐文明顏納亞在地理上跨越了歐洲和亞洲?！?br /> 僅僅因?yàn)轭伡{亞人在過(guò)去的幾個(gè)世紀(jì)里與斯拉夫人有一些重疊的領(lǐng)土，就把他們描述為“斯拉夫人”是極其不合時(shí)宜的。（是的，因?yàn)樵?6 -17世紀(jì)之前，斯拉夫人幾乎不生活在波旁-里海大草原上，這些草原被突厥人占領(lǐng)，他們實(shí)際上在克里米亞、伏爾加河上游和其他地方的港口城市奴役和販賣斯拉夫人）
Labels like Slavic or European is what contemporaneous writers, academics, researchers and historians ascribe to the forebears, in need of a historical notional definition area.
We are aware they were nothing Slavic. It didn't exist at the time.
They were steppe pontic pastoralist/herders.
In fact the Yamnaya were ancestors to modern continental Europeans. Sardinians and Sicilians have relatively poor genetic contribution from the Yamnaya.
That's to say Europe as a geographical entity had genetically diverse streams. So Europe as a concept never reflected any idea of cultural uniformity of “race” or physical type.
They were also ancestral to Central Asians and near Easterners including Syrians and North Iranians, as well as ......s.
The Tocharian the semi sedentary ancestors of the .....rs are noted for their tartans and knowledge of wool manufacturing, which bears strong resemblance to that of the Celts.
Lastly Chess was found to be either invented in India or in Ireland, albeit separately. The Yamnaya are noted to have entered India across the HIndu Kush
同時(shí)代的作家、學(xué)者、研究人員和歷史學(xué)家為其祖先貼上斯拉夫人或歐洲人這樣的標(biāo)簽，是基于一個(gè)歷史概念定義的區(qū)域的需要。
我們知道他們不是斯拉夫人。那時(shí)候這樣的概念還不存在。
他們是草原的牧民。
事實(shí)上，顏納亞人是現(xiàn)代歐洲大陸人的祖先（撒丁島人和西西里人從顏納亞人那里獲得的基因貢獻(xiàn)相對(duì)較少）。也就是說(shuō)，歐洲作為一個(gè)地理實(shí)體存在著基因多樣性。因此，歐洲作為一個(gè)概念，從來(lái)不曾反映任何“種族”或身體類型的文化一致性的想法。
他們也是中亞人和近東人的祖先，包括敘利亞人和北伊朗人，以及WWE人。吐火羅人是WWE人的半定居祖先，以他們的格子呢和羊毛制造的知識(shí)而聞名，這與凱爾特人有很大的相似之處。
最后，國(guó)際象棋被發(fā)現(xiàn)不是在印度就是在愛(ài)爾蘭發(fā)明的，盡管各自是分開(kāi)的。顏納亞人是通過(guò)興都庫(kù)什山脈進(jìn)入印度的。
Wow, the implicit racism of that last picture is astounding. The white guy being central and looking off heroically into the middle distance. The other four pushed to the side. The 19th Century at its worst.
哇，最后一張照片隱含的種族主義令人震驚。
白人站在中間，英勇地望著遠(yuǎn)方。其他四個(gè)被推到一邊。19世紀(jì)是最糟糕的時(shí)期。
Indeed. And the artist made all the others from average to ugly, while the Caucasoid guy is (by 19th c. beauty standards) very handsome and elegant. It's not even subtle. Lol
確實(shí)。藝術(shù)家畫(huà)下的其他所有人要么普通要么丑陋，而高加索人是非常英俊和優(yōu)雅(19世紀(jì)的美的標(biāo)準(zhǔn))。
連微妙都談不善。哈哈
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
I particularly like the shifty look to the Chinese guy. They didn't even try did they.
我尤其喜歡那個(gè)眼神看著就心里有鬼的中國(guó)人。他這里的種族主義甚至是不加掩飾的，不是嗎？
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
I don't see why I wouldn't like the result. This is an interesting result.
“如果你堅(jiān)持舊的種族觀點(diǎn)，你不會(huì)喜歡這樣的結(jié)果?！?br /> 我不明白為什么我會(huì)不喜歡這個(gè)結(jié)果。這是一個(gè)有趣的結(jié)果。
I was thinking of people who are committed to classic race theories.
我指的是那些致力于經(jīng)典種族理論的人。
In support of the marrying people statement, we tend to imagine horse-riding hordes, but they actually were moving much more slowly - note 1000 years from the Ukraine to Portugal etc. While I’m sure it wasn’t all sweetness and light, this was women and children included and pretty slow.
為了支持通婚的說(shuō)法，我們傾向于想象騎馬的部落，但他們實(shí)際上移動(dòng)得慢得多——注意，從烏克蘭到葡萄牙要1000年……。
同時(shí)我確信這并不全是甜蜜和輕松的，這里包括婦女和兒童，所以相當(dāng)緩慢。
The short answer is no. The only currently existing subspecies of humans is homo sapiens sapiens, full stop.
這個(gè)問(wèn)題的簡(jiǎn)短回答是否定的。
目前唯一存在的人類亞種是智人，僅此而已。
That’s why skin color and “race” are bs constructs, invented the last 300 to 400 years ago( at least in terms of culture.) Just take a look at your DNA. I have many races in my family tree but I look white so it’s just bs, judging a book by its color is wrong.
這就是為什么膚色和“種族”是狗屁概念，是過(guò)去300到400年前發(fā)明的(至少在文化方面)。看看你的DNA吧。
我的族譜上有很多種族，但我看起來(lái)是白人，所以這純屬是廢話。
通過(guò)顏色來(lái)判斷一本書(shū)是錯(cuò)誤的。
I agree.
我同意。
I’m no expert, but my impression is that the concept of “race” traditionally used is too broad to be useful. For example, Ashkenazi Jews tend to be more genetically susceptible to certain diseases than other Middle Eastern, North African and Southern European populations, even though they have genetic similarities and have a similar “Mediterranean look”.
Similarly, as I understand it, West Africans tend to have more “fast twitch” muscles than other populations, which can account for the predominance of people of West African descent in Olympic sprinting events. However East Africans don’t have more “fast twitch” muscles, and are not predominant in Olympic sprinting, even though they share a general “Sub-Saharan African look” with West Africans.
In other words, the traditional conceptions of race, which are largely based on looks, fail to take into account that “l(fā)ooks are only skin deep”.
我不是專家，但我的印象是，傳統(tǒng)上使用的“種族”概念太寬泛了，沒(méi)有用。
例如，德系猶太人往往比其他中東、北非和南歐人口在基因上更容易感染某些疾病，盡管他們有基因相似性，并具有類似的"地中海長(zhǎng)相"。
同樣，據(jù)我所知，西非人往往比其他人群擁有更多的肌肉，這可以解釋為什么西非人后裔在奧運(yùn)會(huì)短跑項(xiàng)目中占主導(dǎo)地位。然而，東非人不是這樣的，在奧運(yùn)會(huì)短跑比賽中也不占優(yōu)勢(shì)，盡管他們和西非人一樣有一種“撒哈拉以南非洲人的長(zhǎng)相”。
換句話說(shuō)，在很大程度上基于外貌的傳統(tǒng)種族觀念，沒(méi)有考慮到“外貌是膚淺的”。
Very interesting.
One nitpick about your statement:
“Some of that was due to people marrying neighbors and some was due to invaders marrying newly conquered peoples.”
Inter-racial “marriage” was probably taboo back then as it still is by and large. “Guess who is coming to Dinner” is still true today.
So “marrying” in your statement is an euphemism for mostly rape of women from conquered or defeated tribes.
很有趣。對(duì)樓主的陳述進(jìn)行一點(diǎn)挑剔:
“一些是由于人們與鄰居結(jié)婚，一些是由于侵略者與新征服的民族結(jié)婚?！?br /> 跨種族的“婚姻”在當(dāng)時(shí)可能是禁忌，這種禁忌現(xiàn)在仍然是普遍的?！安虏抡l(shuí)會(huì)來(lái)吃晚飯”這句話今天仍然適用。（《猜猜誰(shuí)會(huì)來(lái)吃晚飯》是上世紀(jì)60年代的一部電影，反應(yīng)了跨種族婚姻對(duì)家庭的沖擊。）
所以在你的聲明中，“結(jié)婚”是一種委婉的說(shuō)法，主要是指強(qiáng)奸來(lái)自被征服或戰(zhàn)敗部落的婦女。
Your views of inter ethnic marriage may be affected by your own cultural background. Latin Americans have intermarried more freely than North Americans. Some cultures discourage intermarriage and some don't.
Conquest is different from casual intermarriage in that it tends to produce males taking over conquered women. That's why native American mitochondrial DNA is so common in my group, Puerto Ricans. Geneticists see evidence for that sort of thing in some places but not others.
你對(duì)異族通婚的看法可能會(huì)受到你自身文化背景的影響。拉美人的通婚比北美人更自由。有些文化不鼓勵(lì)異族通婚，有些則不然。
征服不同于自由的異族婚姻，它往往會(huì)導(dǎo)致男性接管被征服的女性。這就是為什么印第安人的線粒體DNA在我的族群波多黎各人中如此普遍。遺傳學(xué)家在一些地方發(fā)現(xiàn)了這種現(xiàn)象的證據(jù)，但在另一些地方卻沒(méi)有。
Like Iceland.
比如冰島。
I don’t understand. I thought there wasn’t any native population there when the Europeans arrived.
我不明白你的意思。在我看來(lái)歐洲人抵達(dá)的時(shí)候那里沒(méi)有土著人。
Yeah, sorry, it wasn’t about the native population of Iceland. But my understanding is that Iceland was settled by Vikings who stopped by the Shetland islands and “collected” a bunch of Scottish women. So when geneticists studied the current population of Iceland the Y chromosomes can all be traced back to Norway and the mitochondrial DNA to Scotland. I believe someone did a rival human genome project using Icelandic DNA because of this phenomenon. Your comment just reminded me of that.
是的，抱歉。它不是關(guān)于冰島的土著人。我的理解是，冰島是維京人定居的地方，他們?cè)谠O(shè)得蘭群島停留，抓走了一群蘇格蘭女人。因此，當(dāng)遺傳學(xué)家研究冰島目前的人口時(shí)，Y染色體都可以追溯到挪威，而線粒體DNA則可以追溯到蘇格蘭。
因?yàn)檫@個(gè)現(xiàn)象，我相信有人用冰島DNA做了一個(gè)與之競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的人類基因組計(jì)劃。你的評(píng)論正好提醒了我。
Yes, I see. Thanks for the clarification. Another ugly story in the peopling of the Western World.
是的,我明白了。謝謝你的澄清。西方世界的另一個(gè)丑陋的故事。
It's nice to blame the “Western World,” but this behavior is universal among humans - the Han among the southern Chinese cultures, the Mongols, the Seoul and Is ammo Turks, etc.
指責(zé)“西方世界”很好，但這種行為在人類中是普遍的——在中國(guó)南方文化中的漢人、蒙古人、首爾人和土耳其人等等。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
Interestingly enough, the European men are probably most likely to intermarry with other races, if we are permitted to call them that. The Asians, especially the Indians or East Asians, are not that keen to mix. Some of it is due to religion, some due to cultural dislike. Of course, we cannot call that racist. That is only for the White Privileged Supremacists as it were…
有趣的是，如果我們?cè)试S這樣稱呼的話，歐洲男人是最有可能與其他種族通婚的。亞洲人，尤其是印度人和東亞人，不太喜歡混在一起。
有些是由于宗教，有些是由于文化上的厭惡。當(dāng)然，我們不能稱之為種族歧視。這只是對(duì)白人特權(quán)至上主義者來(lái)說(shuō)的定義。
I don't know how widely that's true. Probability varies by country and circumstances.
我不知道這種說(shuō)法有多普遍。概率因國(guó)家和環(huán)境而異。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
You seem to have a difficulty in understanding the huge difference between Bias, conservative culture, repulsion/attraction on one hand and then racism on the other . It’s easy to conflate these because they are subsets of Racism , but one does not equal all. Racism has a supremacy and power dynamic attached to it.
Many people/ cultures are naturally biased to marrying their kind, many are conservative and marry for preservation of norms, others are simply not attracted to features outside of theirs . That is not Racist.
Do you agree that European men have the power dynamics to afford unrestricted foreign travel for many centuries of mans existence and as a result this would make them marry more across the “human spectrum “than any other set of males?
你似乎很難理解偏見(jiàn)、保守文化、排斥/吸引和種族主義之間的巨大差異。我們很容易把它們混為一談，因?yàn)樗鼈兪欠N族主義的一部分，但一個(gè)人并不等于所有人。種族主義有一種霸權(quán)和權(quán)力的驅(qū)動(dòng)因素。
許多人/文化自然偏向于與他們的同類結(jié)婚，許多人是保守的，結(jié)婚是為了保持規(guī)范，其他人只是不被他們以外的特征所吸引。這不是種族歧視。
歐洲男人有能力負(fù)擔(dān)不受限制的國(guó)外旅行長(zhǎng)達(dá)幾個(gè)世紀(jì)，這使他們比任何其他類型的男性都能遇到更多樣性的女人，你同意嗎？
Not necessarily. Exogamy, particularly female exogamy, was very commonplace, with very ample evidence that tribes often exchanged wives that lived even hundreds of km away, without any expansion of one tribe over the territory of those other tribes living very far from them. Tribes did not only have foes. They usually depended heavily on a network of alliances, some of them very distant from their homeland. So, tribal people often did that and assured the endurance of their alliances and trade partnerships by marrying each other. It was much more usual than one thinks even recently. When the Portuguese arrived in Brazil instead of fighting them some tribes decided to instead adopt them into their tribes by marrying their daughters to the new settlers, making alliances and deals with them and even helping them defeat other European rivals vying for the conquest of the Brazilian shores, as well as other indigenous tribes. In their view (not so much in the view of the Europeans, though), by mixing with the settlers they were striking a much stronger alliance and promise of mutual assistance. That was known as “brother-in-lawism" (cunhadismo in Portuguese) and was hugely important for some tribes to get a better position in the new sociopolitical situation.
不一定。異族通婚，尤其是女性異族通婚，非常普遍，有足夠的證據(jù)表明部落經(jīng)常交換住在幾百公里外的妻子，沒(méi)有任何一個(gè)部落擴(kuò)張到離他們很遠(yuǎn)的其他部落的領(lǐng)土。
部落不僅有敵人。他們通常非常依賴一個(gè)聯(lián)盟網(wǎng)絡(luò)，其中一些聯(lián)盟遠(yuǎn)離他們的祖國(guó)。所以，部落的人經(jīng)常這樣做，并通過(guò)彼此通婚來(lái)確保他們的聯(lián)盟和貿(mào)易伙伴關(guān)系。這種情況甚至比人們最近想象的還要常見(jiàn)。
當(dāng)葡萄牙人到達(dá)巴西時(shí)，一些部落并沒(méi)有與他們作戰(zhàn)，而是決定將他們接納為自己的部落，把他們的女兒嫁給新的定居者，與他們結(jié)盟，與他們打交道，甚至幫助他們擊敗其他歐洲對(duì)手，爭(zhēng)奪巴西海岸并征服其他土著部落。在他們看來(lái)(盡管歐洲人不這么認(rèn)為)，通過(guò)與定居者融合，他們形成了一個(gè)更強(qiáng)大的聯(lián)盟，并承諾相互幫助。
這被稱為“brother-in-lawism”，對(duì)一些部落在新的社會(huì)政治形勢(shì)中獲得更好的地位至關(guān)重要。