
Whiteness is racial theory invented by slave owners in America, to be white you had to be of Anglo Saxon, Germanic or Nordic stock and be protestant which meant a lot of Europeans were not included in what it is to be "white" or a "WASP".







I agree. I've personally always considered it peculiar how most Americans view Latinos as an own, independent race in itself, while most Europeans or people in other regions of the world would probably just call them "white" (at least in the case of Central Americans, that's generally true). This says a lot about race as a mental concept. It illustrates quite nicely that race is a social and cultural concept in the sense that our tribalist ideas of race do not actually correspond to biology. There is no significant, biological difference between a "white", protestant Texan and a "latino" Mexican. The reason they're viewed differently is strictly due to political reasons. If the US border had been drawn further south and most of modern Mexico would be part of the US, it's very likely that the people who live in these regions would be considered "white". In Europe, we're less affected by that whole America vs. Mexico issue, so we can look at it a little more objectively. On the other hand, some Europeans might claim that people from Eastern Europe or Turkey are racially different - again, due to historical and political reasons. Many Americans would then correctly point out that the biological differences are in fact minute.
Moreover, many people don't realize this but "race" isn't a biological category at all. Some languages (such as German) don't even use this term anymore for historical reasons. We are all Homo sapiens sapiens, and that's all the same subspecies. Slight genetic differences do exist but there are three important caveats to this:
1. There are about 300-400 "genetic groups" and oftentimes, they do not correspond to phenotype (skin color).
2. Differences within genetic groups are often bigger than between groups. A good allegory would be soccer teams: the average body height of Manchester United might be 1.86m and the average height of HC Madrid might be 1.85m - but within those teams, you might players who are 1.65m and others who are 1.95m.
3. Most of the genetic variations won't actually be found here in the western world. A better place to look for such differences would be Papua New Guinea, where thousands of tiny tribes have developed and evolved independently for tens of thousands of years. Ironically, here in the west we ignorantly consider Papua New Guinea one united, homogenous country. I mean, "they all look the same".
Uhm. . . well, you talk like there is some consensus on "race". There never has been, there never will be.
In Webster's dictionary, Causcasian means;
"Caucasian has two fairly distinct meanings, and the difference between them occasionally leads people to aver that one of them is incorrect. The earliest sense of the word is a literal one: “of or relating to the Caucasus (a region in southeastern Europe between the Black and Caspian seas) or its inhabitants.” The second refers to the racial group commonly referred to as white."
It's like you are ignoring the societal context the term has been used in. When you can't. The science you are referring to is from Johann Friedrich Blumenbach. You are 21 years old. . . why are you using science from a guy who died in 1840? This is 2018. There are been thousands of discoveries in the realm of genetics and biology since Blumenbach died.
"Blumenbach's work included his description of sixty human crania (skulls) published originally in fascicules as Decas craniorum (Göttingen, 1790–1828). This was a founding work for other scientists in the field of craniometry. He divided the human species into five races in 1779, later founded on crania research (description of human skulls), and called them (1793/1795):"
Today we know that is all incorrect. These supposed phenotypical differences are defined depending on the society, country, cultural context, etc. people find themselves in. It is impossible to classify people into anything objectively simply based upon your interpretation of their phenotype.
Different people are going to look at each other and look into the mirror and see different things. Remember, early in American History, Irish-Americans were considered to be a different "race". And satirical cartoons were depicted as apes.
Early in English history, the English considered the Scottish and Irish to be of a different race also.
And I quote;
books.google.com/books
The Caucasian race (also Caucasoid, or Europid) is a grouping of human beings historically regarded as a biological taxon, which, depending on which of the historical race classifications used, have usually included some or all of the ancient and modern populations of Europe, the Caucasus, Asia Minor, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia, Central Asia and South Asia.
I just gave you the historical context. Your five racial groupings were invented by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach. Did you read my response?
You gave me an Americans historical context that was basically written by the kkk
I don't think you are capable of rational thought.
What I did was give the context you neglected. You posted your info, just like it was scientific fact. It is scientific fiction. We know Blumenbach was wrong. You didn't seem to even know where your theory originated from. Blumenbach was the father of racial science fiction. We can't blame him too much. He was trying to objectively classify the human race. He was just wrong. But political and social leaders used his theory as the basis for classifying and ranking different human groups.
I give you this truth, and you accuse me of writing something from the KKK.
I gave you the view of modern science. Try reading a book on genetics and genetic groupings for once. If you can get through all of the actual scientific terms like haplotype, haplogroup, etc.
upload.wikimedia.org/.../..._Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png
you're actually right. those arabs/north Indians etc. are actually Caucasian, they just darkened up over time. but the reason people don't say so is because none of these people want to be considered white.
Did they darken up or did North Europeans lighten up adapting to northern climates.
Norther Eurkpeans became lighter , probably from lacking some vitamins bbecause they lacked sun.
Edit northern Europeans
The oldest human remains were found in Africa. Not in Europe.
@jacquesvol true but we still know little about submerged land and continents.
https://goo.gl/images/m9LdDU
There's more to know about the past than we know now.
Caucasian is a race, and a lot of people believe that race is centered around skin color. It's a common misconception that I admit to believing previously.
@musical_kittycat there is only one race, the HUMAN race. It exists in different colors.
@jacquesvol and with different ethnic physical features.
And there are redheads, blondes and others... 😆😆😆
@jacquesvol and pygmies and some major gemetic adaptations among people's who live at high altitudes, artic conditions, the ability to drink milk and so on... I dont think a white guy was the first to climb Everest, the sherpas were probably up and down it like yoyos and it's likely they carried the first man on Everest up there.
Thanks for MHO!
They do. They think Nordic whites is the only whites. I was telling my brother his Albania friend is European. He laughed😂😂😂😂😂
Also Indians are their own separate race groups, white (Aryan) Indians are not the same as the brown and dark indians who are the original indians. ancestry DNA proves that, horners are not white they are mix breeds or full out middle eastern descent.
Opinion
25Opinion
The term Caucasian? No idea.
As for why people would group others together on the basis of skin tone? Because it's noticeable. Our brains work by induction and we group together large bodies of information by distinctive characteristics. This is a good thing normally, but can also be problematic when making value judgments particularly in regards to other humans ie racism, sexism, etc.
The same reason that we phrases like "blondes are more fun" lead to things like "blacks are more violent." Or some other such thing, you get the idea.
I'm not sure how a phrase that describes blonde haired women as slutty equals blacks are more violent.
Both negative and sexist.
It’s a negligence of education, I’ve known since middle school that the term Caucasian also applies to other people aside from Europeans. The first people I’ve heard being called Caucasian other than Europeans are Indians from India.
I don't think that anyone on the planet has ever had a discussion of race which did not have some element of a sociopolitical agenda behind it.
Most people don't really know much about race. The word caucasian just means people who originated in the caucasus area. Some of them migrated North West into Europe, the rest either stayed or migrated South. Those who went south obviously mixed with others who were darker skinned, so they became darker skinned.
As for whiteness being a racial theory created by slave owners, that's inaccurate and that's not the real argument here. The argument is about the word "caucasian" and that people use it in the wrong way.
The theory is that Caucasian people originated in the Caucasus but the general theory these days is the Caucasians just got white the further north they got and that blue/green eyes and red/blonde hair is something that only came around over 10000 years ago.
There are other theories, and many theories don't makes sense. When it comes to skin colour most people know why black people have black skin - to better protect themselves from the sun. They don't realise that there's a reason we have white skin though - to absorb more sunlight in places where there's less of it in order to be able to produce vitamin D, which is essential for bone strength and the immune system.
The theory that dark skinned people would move into the cold north and turn whiter doesn't make sense - they'd just die out rather than turn white. Also the theory that modern humans (supposedly dark skinned) moved to Europe 40000 years ago, when Europe was a lot colder since the ice age didn't end til around 11,700, again makes no sense. During the ice age the middle east and Northern Africa would have been cooler, and white people would have been able to live there - those who migrated north were probably white.
It's confusing, because there are white Latinos, Arabs and Indians. And scientifically they actually count as White.
Most Americans don't realize Caucasians are from the Caucasus Mountains. But the name has been used to refer to ALL white people, because that's where the white race originates.
You are correct about cacauses. But the word is used to describe people who are of anglo saxon or european descent. It is not intended to describe all white people.
@Handsome_cowboy E xactky. And my Art History teacher Anglo-Saxon is a made up term. There was no such thing
There were English and Saxons, but no Anglo-Saxons
@Handsome_cowboy there's a difference between race and ethnicity. Ethnicity is a subgroup of race in this case "white" is a subgroup of the Caucasian race.
Yeah
Race doesn't exist, we are all humans and bleed the same color.
Only racists people base their outlook and actions on the skin tone of others.
Black people can be racist too, reverse racism is absolutely a thing that racists try to say can't exist because of their racist opinions.
I wonder how racists would handle diseases that changed the skin tone like vitiligo? Melanin is all that separates entire "races" of people from each other and maybe a few specific genes too.
Well there's also the differences in skull features and other genetic features. The differences are small but they are there.
Because language evolves over time. Caucasian has come to mean white. So that's what the word actually means.
Nothing wrong with that. A huge portion of our language means something different than it did centuries ago, or even decades ago. There are quite a few words that have changed meanings just in my lifetime. If that didn't happen then language would be static and never change. There would be no such langue as English.
If all Whites are Caucasian, then Japanese, Phillipino, and Chinese are all the same too. It is BS.
The majority of Whites and Europeans are not Caucasian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus
Most Whites in the USA are Irish, English, German, and French. They are not Caucasian.
Your mistaking race with ethnicity. North European is an ethnicity.
It's because that is how the government defines race on all it's forms. Anyone of European decent (including southern Europe like Spain and Italy) is white or Caucasian.
They're using it as a polite way of saying 'white'.
They don't give a shit about skull shape.
The definition of caucasion is literally to be white. Of anglo saxon or european decent. So your question is therefore answered by itself actually. www.google.com/search Your question is pointless because we use it correctly.
The Caucasian race (also Caucasoid, or Europid) is a grouping of human beings historically regarded as a biological taxon, which, depending on which of the historical race classifications used, have usually included some or all of the ancient and modern populations of Europe, the Caucasus, Asia Minor, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia, Central Asia and South Asia.
Because it's totally arbitrary and FUCKED UP from the beginning. There is NO scientific way to actually define "race" in any way that matches any "race" as it is generally accepted.
Language is fluid. Words that meant something in the past do not always mean the same today and thats okay.
Today, caucassian means mostly white people and I am okay with that.
In America maybe but in other Caucasian countries it doesn't mean that
Because skin color is the easiest characteristic to spot at a distance. humans are very visually oriented.
my country is the tiny small red dot in north africa
You're from Tunisia? Why do I keep meeting people from there? I mean, the ones I met are really nice people :)
@therainman yes how many pple from there have u met and im glad they were nice to u
I know of a very nice family of 5. I don't know them personally but I talk to 2 of them quite often. One of them lives outside of Tunisia but the rest live all in the same area. I also know one of the girl's boyfriend and he's a very nice gentleman :)
Hitler, an Austrian, believed the same thing.. that Caucasian meant white skin.. and he was a nazi
It was the racial theory of the day. Most of western intellectuals believed what Hitler believed. Like the Americans thought the Japanese made inferior pilots due to their eyes, Pearl harbour was a shock.
Exactly. Racism sucks
Because most of the Americans are ignorant people.
There are three branches of Caucasians: Indo-European (Aryan), Semitic, and Hamitic. Each of them have several sub-branches or types.
Everything is a construct. Species is a construct that doesn't mean it isn't important.
Racism exists since old times. The US and Germany made it a creed.
And the Belgians they made it a creed too.
But how old?
Racism isn't and wasn't ever law in Belgium
Yeah but dude the Congo.. ...
@HereIbe Old Romans had racist laws against Jews since Constantine. England too had some. But Germany after 1933 and the US had a complete system based on races.
@HereIbe the big excuse antisemitism abuses. Ever since Constantine and later Luther.
What are you blabbering about, you ignorant fool? CITE THE SPECIFIC ROMAN LAWS that you claim existed. If you can't cite them, obviously, you're just a filthy liar who makes up any old crap to suit your agenda. If the laws existed, then CITE THEM.
What were the specific Roman laws, liar?
@HereIbe But of course there were laws against the Jews, right? We all know that, I mean, isn't it just plain good ole fashioned history?
Jews could not hold any public office or any position in government, right? Laws excluded them from getting justice in the court system too, right? Isn't that a biggie? If you can't testify against non-Jews, doesn't that tilt the scales?
These laws of course come after Christianity became Rome's state religion.
@RolandCuthbert, okay, cite those laws. You claim the Romans had such laws, cite them.
@RolandCuthbert, also, cite those portions of any such laws that made them RACIAL in nature and not religious. That is a RACIAL law against Jews would still apply even if the Jew converted to another religion. Therefore, you must cite the laws AND the provisions that made them apply even if the person converted away from the Jewish religion.
Provide the ACTUAL CITATIONS, or you're just ignorantly repeating rumors.
Not sure it was a racist law against Jews but more of a sectarian law, a new could become a Roman citizen by serving in the army or not be persecuted by dropping his religion and worshipping the roman gods or god of the time. The Roman empire was a multicultural and multiracial soceity though a brutal one that practiced the worst forms of slavery in history.
@HereIbe haha! So you are going to add these additional requirements of race or religion? For what purpose?
And why do I have to cite anything in this instance since you are adding some ridiculous requirement? Anyway, you know the laws which I speak of, they are the ones instituted around the time of the Council of Nicea.
@HereIbe Here 's your wish: sourcebooks.fordham.edu/.../jews-romanlaw.asp
@HereIbe @RolandCutberth sourcebooks.fordham.edu/.../jews-romanlaw.asp
I couldn't send them right away because I was on my phone.
It doesn't matter. . . he has now "qualified" his request. So the source material must show "racial" discrimination and not religious discrimination.
Hilarious. . .
@jacquesvol your source doesn't mention race just jews and other non Christians. Like I can't see anything against semetic Christians.
@PervinMervin29 Romans where not aware
Semitic Christians existed
Of course because the first Christians were semetic and Jewish.
@RolandCuthbert no, STUPID. This thread is about RACE, you moron. From the original post, it was about RACE. However, you want to twist it and claim that the Romans had RACIST laws just like the USA did. Okay, show those laws.
@HereIbe there defenitley is but the Christian middle eastern Christians have been so badly persecuted even until the present that they are so few in number.
@HereIbe they exist. To Romans they were just Jews
Saddam's PM was a Christian. The Egyptian UN secretary Boutros Gali was a Christian
Who did not worship their deities Saturn, sol invictitus or Jesus depending on which century.
So what the Nazis had Jews in their ranks.
Irrelevant anecdote in this discussion.
@HereIbe Haha! You called me a "moron". And I call you "Adorable". You are so cute when you are angry.
From the original post. . .
"North Africa, the middle East, the Indian sub continent, Asia minor, South America, central America, North America, southern Europe, northern Europe, scandanavia, eastern Europe."
The original post talks about five racial groups. Which one is Jewish?
Haha!!
As irealvent as "Saddam's PM was a Christian. The Egyptian UN secretary Boutros Gali was a Christian"?
@RolandCuthbert semetic Jews are Caucasian.
The question was not directed at you, PM.
And for our childish participant, the Romans were "Caucasian" also.
@RolandCuthbert it's my question.
Yeah. . .
:D
@RolandCuthbert @HereIbe requalifying the request is moving the goalposts during the game. A fallacy.
@jacquesvol
Honestly, we knew that was going to happen. Of course Romans had no concept of "race". But they definitely had a concept of "difference". Romans discriminated against Jews and it is silly to think they kept the requirement strictly to religion. A person born a Jew was considered to be Jew.
@RolandCuthbert well the greek/latin word barbarian means someone who isn't greek or roman. Roman citizenship was a hard thing to get even if you were filthy rich. Ususally you had to serve as an auxiliary in the Roman legions for 20 years and then citizenship was passed down to your kids. That's why there was such an influx of non Roman non Italians into Roman soceity. Jews were a problem for Romans because Jews would not accept Roman God's or the emperor as a living God, they wouldn't even go through the motions of pretending. In the Christian Byzantine eastern Roman empire jews were seen as a dangerous rivial to Christianity.
@PervinMervin29 I was not implying that the Roman standard for "difference" was based on anything objective or "common sense". But to claim that they would accept a Jewish person based he/she rejected Judaism is nonsense.
Its like you don't even read back your posts to yourself, PM. You are the best argument against anything you write.
Think about what you posted.
1. We are talking about laws created long after Christianity became Rome's state religion.
2. Are you actually implying that a Jewish person ceases to be a Jew once they stop practicing Judaism?
@RolandCuthbert but the Romans did accept Jews at least in the pre Christian empire and many became full Roman citizens. The first Christians were Jews, the decendants of the first Christians still live in the middle East, they were roman citizens of time right up until the fall by the byzantine empire.
A Jewish person does stop being a Jew when they stop practicing Judaism but they are still ethnically jewish/semetic/Hebrew. It's no different than when an Irish Catholic stops practicing a Catholic, they are still ethnically an Irish Catholic but no longer a catholic. In the early days of the Christian church when it was expanding all over the Roman empire they were accepting anyone willing to convert.
You are just so young and you sound so isolated. It's like you don't socialize or something. I just told you that a Jewish person does not stop being Jewish just because they accept another religion, yet you repeated my words back to me in this post.
PM, do you even know what you are arguing at this point?
Do you support Herelbe's point or not? Have you even thought about it? Or were you so busy arguing that you forgot what the topic was about?
Herelbe,
"If they converted to a different religion, the law didn't apply. That is NOT a racist law, you idiot. Religion is NOT A RACE. "
@RolandCuthbert so we are basically all agreeing. Sweet. Calm yourself petal.
I don't know i am just human fuck race who down to f***❤😙
Because that's how the term commonly is used in practice. Why do people think a guy who likes teenage girls is a pedophile?
The Caucasian and Caucasoid have different meanings because I'm Caucasoid but not Caucasian.
It's propaganda and stereotypes.
Because ~*racism*~
I'm a Caucasoid
Perhaps
Racism
Seems legit
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions