there is only one "white" race (Caucasian) and not all of them are white.

it surprises me how misused the word race is. there are only three races:
Caucasian, African, and Asian. well some suggest that Pacific Islander is separate from Asian.

but anyway, any other designation is either a Nationality or Ethnicity.

I love McDonald's though.

Arabians are Caucasian (they are the origin of the race).
Indian and Mediterranean Africans are also Caucasian.

skin color is not an indication of race, but sun exposure. IE the closer to the equator the darker the skin. Closers to the poles, lighter skin, hair and eyes. However, with todays mobility it doesn't hold as much truth.

the only difference between Germanic/Nordic, Slavic, and Mediterranean is pigmentation (see above comment).

Although I think the underlying question here would be: Where do you draw the line between a "race" and a "sub-race"?

The factors that I speak of, are not solely the result of adaptation and external selection, but also results from more common genes found in the different groups that migrated out of Africa resulting in differences in the gene pool. One way of tracing these is the mDNA, however, as you say, when taken too far it'll just lead us back to Africa.

Now the question again, when do you go too far back?

I put a bit of time into it, and realised that the definition of race, ethniticity, and even sub-species are quite vague (although sub-species is a bit more clear as it is the only one that can be used taxinomically).

Taken from Wikipedia:
" If sufficiently different or has been tested to show little genetic connection regardless of phenotype, two or more groups/races can be identified as subspecies, which is an official biological taxonomy unit subordinate to species. If not, they are denoted as races, which means that a formal rank should not be given to the group, or taxonomists are unsure whether or not a formal rank should be given. According to Ernst W. Mayr, "a subspecies is a geographic race that is sufficiently different taxonomically to be worthy of a separate name".[1][2] Hence, the biological races are not taxonomical categories."

A little more digging resulted in the following picture from Meyers Konversations-Lexikon, which supports your claim of there being 3 races (although the Dravidians and Sinhalese (basically Hindi people) are classified as uncertain):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … s0476a.jpg

However, I differ in my opinion which is the result of vague descriptions I guess.
I would consider Germanic and Scandinavian but a sub-race (which was just something I came up with to simplify things) as an ethniticity, although I am not sure of what the difference between the two would be or whether there may be one (I might've just picked the word for lack of a better one).

Anyhow, this semi-troll has gotten a bit out of hand now as I find myself actually putting time into my posts, so I'll stop now

=^o.o^= Most two legged's will be slapped about by the four legged, and we shall feast on your entrails on our bellah's.  Now, be a good sapien mammal and fetch me a poptart.

they aren't a separate race,  they don't date back as far as the Egyptian pyramids. native americans crossed from Russia at the time of the last ice age and migrated south, yes all the way to tierra de fuego.

they are all the same race with the same roots, asian.

American monkeys? lol that's awesome

Hehe I don't know either, maybe aliens?

Well actually unless you were there all those millenia ago, no one knows for sure. Now if you tell me someone researched it then I'll laugh hard at them.

lies, all lies, you all kome from Spain!

Kriss ezposed it in this thread:
http://imperialconflict.com/forum/viewt … ?id=184800