![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I suggest a person participating here, who classifies themselves as a white person should submit a photo of themselves. Is there a white person here who will submit a photo of themselves? Spookwaffe
The photo now is absurd. Does anyone know of any copyright-free photograph showing one or more white people who aren't famous? We need a photograph here, not a painting of the Declaration of Independence signing. Give me a break. Moncrief 23:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
How about the Judd's?
Here we go again -- somebody named DonSiano keeps insisting on putting the freaking Venus by Botticelli on this page. I shouldn't have to point out all the reasons why this is inappropriate, but here goes:
ThePedanticPrick 21:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Arguably, this phrase is the most common use of "White" in the USA today, and its history says a good deal about the history of the term "White" itself, so I think it makes sense to have information on it. It is not exactly analogous to "Nigger" etc. because it is understood to mean a subset of whites and not the whole group. It is usually used today in contexts where it is humorous and only mildly offensive. -- JWB 16:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia: White trash (extended: poor white trash; acronym: "WT") is an ethnic slur or racial epithet usually used to describe certain low income persons of European descent....."
The White Trash article is about a ethnic slur and epithet. I would disagree that it has "lots of good analysis". Most of that article is completely unsourced and non-encyclopedic in nature. Icemountain 18:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
The term "white trash" has very little to do with race and almost everything to do with socio-economic status. As such, it would seem to have little relevance to this page. I'm staying neutral on this issue, however, at least until I hear some better arguments. ThePedanticPrick 19:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Certain misguided bigots keep trying to include the following link in the external links section: [1] They claim it is a mere "History of the White Race", which it is not. The plain agenda of that site is to convince its readers that racial mixing will destroy western civilization as we know it, leaving our cities in ruin and our societies dissolved by violence. I haven't bothered to read the whole thing (I also don't need to drink a whole gallon of milk to know whether or not it's rotten), but the thesis is clear from a reading of the home page and the conclusion sections. I'll grant that the External Links section doesn't have to be NPOV, as does the rest of the article, but I must object to the actions of bigots to disguise their hatred as "History". To claim that I am espousing a POV by describing their favorite Web site as "a white-separatist site that discourages racial mixing" is the most blatant hypocrisy. Those are the kindest terms I could find to describe the beliefs that site is promoting. If you find the terms "white-separatism" and "anti-miscegenation" offensive, then maybe you could explain to me the nature of your bigoted beliefs. If, indeed, you don't think the white race is superior or that whites should not mix with "inferior" non-whites, then let's get rid of that link and discuss some real history. If not, then at least be honest about who you are. White sheets and pointy hoods are for sissies. ThePedanticPrick 19:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
The site is obviously racist, so it shouldn't be in the "Links" section simply as "A History of the White Race". Maybe "For an example of the kind of thinking engendered by [racist concept], see...". In the meantime I have removed it. Jer ome 07:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course that site is a racist nest. This guy there is a charlatan. A similar site is the following, which happens to be a parody of that one, but at least funny: http://www.sitesled.com/members/racialreality/medish/index.html#gallery
I removed the part that said there were signifcant white populations there because it has become antiqudated. I'm sure it was accurate at the time it was written but now both these countries have greater than 90% black populations and less than 4% white. For a country of 2 million people I don't 4% white people would be considered signifcant. You wouldn't say Canada had a signifcant black population because they have 5% blacks right.
I also removed the part about Mark Shriver because it is inconsistent with other artilces one race. Particularly the aritlce on blacks said that most black in Americas have white ancestry which is contradictory to what Shriver study SUGGEST (Not proves). Maybe Shriver is right but he even claims his own study as a suggestion and not fact. I suggest that whoever put this in talk to the person who created the part of the black article so wiki doesn't look like it is made up by a bunch of white and black supremist.
I don't know who put back in that whites make up a siginifcant % of the population of Zimbabwe but if you have any evidence please present it. Although this may have been true 20-30 years ago this is a country that is 98% black people this is taken from StatsZimbabawe and anyone can go verify that. I'm sorry but 1% of a population is not significant. We don't say that Italia or Greece has a significant black population it just silly to consider 1% as signifcant. You might be wondering what the other 1% of people are they are a variety of backgrounds like chinese and indians
I've noticed a lot of edit wars going on over the paragraph about who is (or has been) considered white in Latin-American countries. I'm familiar with the caste system of Haiti that placed mulattoes above full-blacks, but I never heard of them being called white. I'm also going to need to see a credible source for this idea that "any white admixture rendered a person white". I know human nature and I've lived around a lot of latinos and spaniards, and I just don't see them saying "Ok, your grandmother was white, you're white now too. Welcome to the ruling class!" But that's just my impression. How about we get some good sources here instead of just reverting back and forth? ThePedanticPrick 16:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with TPP on bringing some sources in for some of the statements. Icemountain 00:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
There's some back and forth going on in the sentence about Hispanics being excluded from the definition of "white". I tend to think that all or most hispanics are seen as non-white, even the very light-skinned european-looking ones, due to their association with the mestizo and mulatto members of this minority group. I'd venture to say that only the blondest spaniards and argentinians could be accepted as white in this country, and that a lot of dark-haired, olive-skinned spaniards would be excluded. It's strange that the US is so race-conscious that they've turned "Hispanic" into a quasi-racial category, when it's simply a linguistic-cultural designation(the Census is aware of this, most Americans are not). Anyway, enough about my opinions and impressions, can we get some independent data on this? Maybe a survey of European-Spanish immigrants who say they are being treated as non-white? Something along those lines? ThePedanticPrick 16:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
"Furthermore, while South Asians are also an anthropologically caucasoid people."
Gawd, this is the pinnicale of the stuff that sets me off. South Asians are not anthropologically caucasoid. They vary. Do we need to get into this? It is obvious at this point (in Wiki land) that "Caucasoid" is being substituted for "White". I had an edit war on the Caucasoid link becuse someone wanted to force Ethiopians to be Caucasoid (and thus White). Veddic, Dalits, and the half dozen different types of Australoid people in Asia are NOT Caucasoids. The magic word here is intensionalism, you can't make "Caucasoid" mean "everyone with round eyes and wavy to straight hair". Their skulls don't resemble. GOD!!!!! - -- 208.254.174.148 13:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Zaph
Well the whole thing centers around what the English speaking American and NorthEast European thinks. If they say no North Africans allowed, then we have no choice but to obey their rules. Me personally, I rather shrink their size, and for that reason I also find North Africans to be "not" white. Whiteness expands and contracts by the desires of the American European mindset which needs the numbers from time to time to use as demographic leverage in statistics and social policy. -- 208.254.174.148 01:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC) Zaph
-- 142.161.64.231 21:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Well, the thing is they have all the feature that most simliar to caucasoid, and not even close to mongoloid and africanoid, so yah.... they are close to Caucasoid. im sorry
--Caucasian is NOT a color! Caucasian is a Race! Race is the features, the shape and anthropological bio-metrics of any living being. A red Apple and a green Apple, have different colors, but they both are still Apples. A green apple and a green bananna are NOT the same! Even if their colors are the same, their Race (shape & features) are NOT the same. Likewise, East Indians and Europeans are both Caucasian. Except one is white the other is brown, dark brown and some are as light as white european. Regardless of their coloring, the East Indians have the same features as white europeans. Or shall I say the white europeans have the same features as most of the east indians and middle easterners, excluding the oriental and negro ones. So enough of this un-educated, low IQ talk of color having anything to do with race. Europeans, North Africans, Middle Easterners, Russians, Central Asians and East Indians all fall into the Caucasian Race. Although not all of those groups are the white ones of the Caucasian Race. The Caucasian Race is: White Europeans, North Africans (Egyptians & Algerians), Middle Easterners, Russians, Central Asians and East Indians. Just like Apples come in different colors, so do Caucasians. A Green Apple is the same Race as a Red Apple. A Green Apple is NOT the same Race as a Green Bananna.
"Whites are also nearly unique in that they exhibit a variety of hair and eye colours. In parts of the world north of 50° North latitude, sunlight is low and weak enough that people (and white coloured polar animals for that matter) with blond hair, blue eyes, and pale skin have an advantage over those with darker colouration. Benefits include resistance to rickets, possibly frostbite, and a suggested aesthetic appeal"
...higher asthetic appeal for Europeans as a kind of natural selection... Tell me what you think. Does the wind really blow differently when it approaches a blonde haired human? Maybe the polar bears are nicer to the lighterskinned humans.... or maybe when a European passes gas, it really does smell more asthetically pleasing because it's coming out of a pale skinned body? The authori suggests that whites are more asthetically pleasing, because the white people themselves insist that it is, and well, circular reasoning is always asthetically pleasing.
I just wonder, when someone posts this stuff, and tries to blend it in to the rest of the objective material... when the rest of you guys read it, doesn't somebody question it? I mean does it pop up in your minds "hey, thats not objective, that bias!". I mean yes, the word "suggested" is put in there, but WHO is doing the suggesting? After all, someone is going to respond that the thing should be left "as is" because well, the word "suggest" is used to "balance" the pov. But heck, people suggest all sorts of things. I'm sure NAZI scientists suggested a certain asthetic appeal, but we need some factual references to this, and I doubt we are going to find a factual scientific basis to promote the idea that blonde-blue-light skin is more asthetically appealing to anyone besides the white people themselves (self promoting), or those in the rest of the world who believe that there is some inherent "goodness" factor for their children/grandchildren to be part-white.
I am putting a controversal flag on this discussion, as it's apparent that the discussions on this topic has warranted it.
Zaph
I'm not going to edit this out since this is flagged as "controversial" and I suspect in any case that it's there to draw people's attention, but really, does this belong in the article: "...a suggested aesthetic appeal to... um... the blonde haired descendants and their colonized victims, whom they had berated for three centuries that they are more asthetically appealing." KathL 20:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I certainly agree with you. I took it out. Glad you agree. I wondeer why someone would have put "a certain asthetic appeal" into the article in the first place.-- 68.60.55.162 05:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC) Zaph
Gentlemen, I offer three comments on this topic: one regarding "esthetic appeal," one about latitude, and one about the relevance of skin tone to this article.
FrankWSweet, the only problem I have with your essay is that you claim that the only solid proof of skin tone at certain times in the past would be in the form of artwork. You claim that "the hunting scene above, one of many examples showing dark-brown bowmen shooting medium-brown deer, was painted in what is now France fifteen to thirteen millennia ago. Judging by the artists’ palettes, Europeans then had not yet lost their brown complexion," and thus that the limited colors available to Neolithic cave painters reflects the artists skin tone. This is illogical, and is contradicted by a recent study that is cited in a section below:
[5]. As you can see, according to this study, the mutation for white skin is at least 20,000 years old. Genetic analysis is much more concrete proof of the age of certain genetically-determined phenotypes than cave-art (besides, the color of the hunters and the deer that are in the photo in your essay look the same to me, and any perceived difference would be subjective). Furthermore, you quote that “the first depiction of variable pigmentation in man dates back to about 1300 BC and was found on the walls of the tomb of Sethos I,” and mention the depiction of the pale Lady Nofret predating these wall paintings to argue that these are the earliest proofs of white skin, when the quote clearly states "depiction", and in no way suggests that this is proof of the earliest appearance of white skin. And if white skin first appeared around the Baltic and North seas, would it make sense to find proof of the earliest white skin in Egypt? I don't have an education in genetics, so I don't have any other problems with your paper; and I've heard the meat/dairy vs. grain-based diet account of skin-tone discrepency between populations at the same latitude before, but you're argument about artwork as proof of the age of certain physical traits just stands out as poor reasoning. --
Jugbo
00:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Original paragraph:
Due to the historic one drop rule in the United States, people with any known admixture of African origin have always been catergorised as black, including mulattos and quadroons, or octoroons. In Europe, these same people would always be classed as 'mixed race'—a blanket term for all people with any multiple racial heritage. Meanwhile, in Latin American countries like Cuba, the Dominican Republic, or Brazil, they may be considered, and may consider themselves, white.
Comments
1. The statement “people with any known admixture of African origin have always been catergorised as black” is a bit strong. “Always” could refer to our emergence as a species 160 kya. As pointed out in the wikipedia article on “one drop rule,” the notion of invisible Blackness was not widely known nor made statutory until the 20th century.
2. The use of the term “known admixture” is misleading. About one-third of Americans who self-identity as “White” have detectable recent African admixture of which they are unaware but which is common knowledge among molecular anthropologists (see http://backintyme.com/essay040608.htm). No one would consider them “Black.” “Known ancestry,” on the other hand, suggests openly acknowledged Black heritage, which many Americans do see as making you Black.
3. The phrase “including mulattos and quadroons, or octoroons” is unnecessary. Altering it to read “any known African ancestry” would just make it redundant.
4. The three sentences summarizing the pre-20th-century criteria of membership in the U.S. White endogamous group clarify that the notion of invisible blackness is 20th century, and did not “always” exist.
5. The statement “In Europe, these same people would always be classed as 'mixed race'” is incorrect if it refers to people of trivial African ancestry who look utterly European. Such people are simply “White” anywhere but in the United States. If it refers to people of slight African appearance, then their designation as “mixed” or “coloured” applies also to Asia, Africa, Australia, and South America – not just Europe.
FrankWSweet 14:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey Ped, why didn't I get that glorious fanfare? And isn't amazing how clearly the whole Arab and Latino thing looks in relation to Blackness when we discuss it from a white context? It's pretty "evident" where the lines are drawn! I think you guys should clearly show that whitness is largely determined by proximity to Northeastern Eurasia, and that the strength of white identity is determined by the proximity into that region. You could even narrow it down into a specific circle, of "eternally white" and varying circles of "whiteness" all the way to an outer rim of peripherally white, with everyone else outside the circle, not white, but "closer to being white". You know how to do it! -- 208.254.174.148 10:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Zaph
"anti-White, Race Traitor-positions"? Yes, thank you for being so explicit about your transparent prejudice. Paul B 01:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Gramaic, it is not accurate to say that Middle Easterners resemble Europeans, that's misleading because the vast majority of Middle Easterners who are Muslim Arabs and Perisans are very different from Europeans. So why should it be in an encyclopedia entry when it's the exception rather than the rule? For every Ralph Nader who some view as White, there are hundreds of millions of Arabs and Persians, that aren't considered White by the vast majority of the White world. Icemountain 14:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
[ Spanish leader and Moroccan King]
Gramaic, I really don't think Wikipedia should start going down a slippery slope on this stuff. Suffice it to say, that your opinion that Middle Easterners are White and look like Europeans, even southern Europeans, is your personal opinion. Seriously, kindly stop pushing this controversial view into a Wikipedia encyclopedia article where it is just not appropriate or necessary. Wikipedia is not a place to debate a controversial issue that is not agreed to or vetted. It most definitely is POV. Icemountain 16:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Paul, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a blog. The information that goes in should be vetted. I don't think North Africans look like Southern Europeans, but you do. Do you have a poll of the entire world's opinion on this? Including the views of Middle Easterners? I guess two people can view the above picture and see similarities? Others see differences. Which is the correct picture to refer to? There is no way to vet that kind of POV statement, and so it really is non-encyclopedic. Icemountain 16:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes Icemountain, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We as an encyclopedia must educate the readers that there are Middle Easterners that resemble Europeans. I'm not the one who's pushing anything here, you are. I'm not saying that all Middle Easterners and North Africans resemble Europeans, but many actually do. So stating that there are Middle Easterners and North Afrians who resemble Southern Europeans (and a minority also resemble Northern Europeans) is very NPOV, but denying that there aren't fair skinned, European looking Middle Easterners is the one that is misleading and inaccurate, and also biased. Please reveiw WP:NPOV. -- Gramaic | Talk 01:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Someone at IP 208.254.174.148 added this section to the article. They copied and pasted here from something that I wrote for an entirely different article. I have no objection to the unattributed copying (this is Wikipedia, after all), but the original is inapplicable to this topic. Rather than reverting it, I have tried to adapt it. Specifically, the three Eurocentric/Afrocentric criteria for deciding whether someone is White or Black (ancestry, appearance, self-identity) operate differently (but compementarily) for White than for Black. To be accepted as White in the Eurocentric/Afrocentric view, one must be of mostly European ancestry AND "look White" AND self-identify as White. To be accepted as Black in the Eurocentric/Afrocentric view, one must be of some African ancestry OR "look Black" OR self-identify as Black. A Venn diagram might help to get the point across. -- FrankWSweet 13:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
My father was a Half Breed American Indian, and my mom is a Mixed-Blood(her ancestry consists of Hispanic(Mexican & Spanish),Arab-Jew, Along with Brittish Isle,Scandanavian & Various American Indian groups, so the question remains: am I White? I mean on nearly every legal Document I put White/American Indian or other(which is a very vague definition,I have dark skin(many people think I am a full-blooded Mexican), blue eyes, and a Middle Eastern Nose, though everyone tries to tell me that I "Look Mexican & Act White" my heritage is mainly American Indian I just want to know if everything else I am is White.... Mutt 02:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Revision as of 20:16, 14 December 2005: added "* A History of the White Race - A site that covers 350 centuries of White history and discusses the theory that racial mixing contributes to the downfall of great White civilizations."
Revision as of 20:56, 14 December 2005: removed, "Thus people who are not white in the traditional sense, but have light skin, such as Japanese, Koreans and Northern Chinese may well be able to legitimately describe themselves as white." Also, "(although Greeks, Sicilians, Spaniards and Portuguese are sometimes considered non-White by other Europeans)" Also, "Every New World nation save one (the United States) has a unimodal Afro-European admixture scatter diagram revealing complete mixing of European with African and Native American ancestries.
Revision as of 21:22, 14 December 2005: removed, " In the New World today, however, the White/non-White distinction is cultural, not genetic."
Frank, you are the one that made the above statement, shouldn't you provide a source or basis for it? That statement is controversial and you know it, so how can you possibly justify placing that POV into an encyclopedia? Icemountain 18:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I know what you are saying, and I would hope for compromise and consensus. This article should also clearly articulate what White means in 2005, just as the articles from the 19th Century reflected that period. So I don't see why the emphasis shouldn't be about Whites in 2005, rather than a whiteness studies emphasis. I am working from 2005's most widely accepted idea that European-descended people are White, not my personal definition. I really believe that you should contribute to whiteness studies, because that is primarily what you are focusing on. Thanks. Icemountain 18:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
There were also one or two Icemountain changes that I left in situ. The most important is the elimination or softening of several references to people "looking white" (or not) couched in language that assumed objectivity when judging this. If the studies of Robert Kurzban, John Tooby, and Leda Cosmides have taught us anything, it is that whether someone "looks white" (or not) is in the eye of the beholder. I think it best to avoid saying, for instance, that Middle-eastern Jews "look just like" Middle-eastern Muslims. They dress differently, after all. And anyone who doubts that dress, posture, body language, hair style, and the like can radically change whether someone "looks white" to unprompted subjects has not yet read the literature on "racial" perception. -- Frank W Sweet 15:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Frank, are you going to say that the people that live in Fes are "White" or even that "some" of them are? That all I am getting at. Let's be accurate and not misleading. Icemountain 18:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Icemountain wrote: I believe more White/European history and geography should be incorporated into this article. Why shouldn't this article cover or link to items that relate to White people: such as the history of Spanish reconquest or the issues regarding European colonization of the Americas etc.? Otherwise this just becomes another whiteness studies. Please don't also try to say the Amerindians were white too, because they didn't view themselves as white either! ;-) Icemountain 18:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Icemountain wrote: You are the one that made the above statement [In the New World today, however, the White/non-White distinction is apparently cultural, not genetic, since every New World nation save one (the United States) has a unimodal Afro-European admixture scatter diagram revealing complete mixing of European with African and Native American ancestries.] Shouldn't you provide a source or basis for it? That statement is controversial and you know it, so how can you possibly justify placing that POV into an encyclopedia?Icemountain 18:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Icemountain wrote: This article should ... articulate what White means in 2005, just as the articles from the 19th Century reflected that period. So I don't see why the emphasis shouldn't be about Whites in 2005, rather than a whiteness studies emphasis. I am working from 2005's most widely accepted idea that European-descended people are White, not my personal definition.Icemountain 18:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Icemountain wrote: Frank, are you going to say that the people that live in Fes are "White" or even that "some" of them are?Icemountain 18:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The major change made by Gramaic at 22:58, 15 December 2005 was from this:
to this:
The first problem with the change is that it replaces the specific citing of EEOC and Census Bureau regulations with the blanket statement, "all the aforementioned are always categorised as white by US government agencies and the U.S. census." The use of "all" and "always" make the statement weak and unpersuasive. Worse, it is factually in error; the Census Bureau does not classify anyone as anything. The Bureau allows each respondent to classify themselves however they wish. A secondary problem is the removal of the conclusion that most U.S. voters are in agreement with EEOC regulations. This conclusion is based on the fact that if most voters disagreed, they would express their desires to Congress, the appropriate Congressional committee would review the regulations, and the Executive Branch would implement Congressional wishes. This sort of adjustment to regulations happens virtually every day and, in fact, was the mechanism whereby the census was changed to allow "check all races that apply." Finally, rest of Gramaic's changes removed objective phrasing regarding appearance and replaced it with subjective phrasing and the obsolete term "caucasoid." -- Frank W Sweet 01:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia has come under scrutiny in recent weeks, and it is about time. While it has always been a reasonably accurate source of information with respect to technical and to a lesser extent hard science topics, it tends to be little better than an opininated news group when it comes to topics in the areas of the humanities, particularly topics relating to history, politics, anthropology, race, religion, etc. Here it tends to reflect the POV of the American academic hard left rather than anything approaching an objective appraisal of reality.
The issue of race in particular tends to be described at Wikipedia from the POV of "Whiteness studies". This is a relatively recent and controversial "field" created by American academics openly identifying as left wing which presents itself as the critical evaluation of 'the concept of Whiteness', but which in fact tends to boil down to a new religion whose chief article of faith is the idea that the 'white race' is essentially a Nordic conspiracy to disenfranchsie everyone darker than a Frenchman. Unfortunately, topics relating to race in particular tend to be contributed disproportionatley by far left, Anglo-American academics of the 'white lib guilt' variety.
The bottomline is, the concept of 'white' and certainly 'caucasian' is not nearly as 'fluid' or 'arbitrary' as those on the racist left suggest. 'Race' describes essentially those qualities of appearance that can be captured by a statue. Given a gray statue of a human figure, any layman could discern immediately that it was from Europe and not from Sub-Saharan Africa or East Asia, though he might not be able to discern whether it was from ancient Greece or ancient Ireland, even though Greeks can generally be readily distinguished from Irishmen in the flesh.
Sorry, TPP, but I don't think he's talking about "politics", and his comments show critical thinking. Aren't you being slightly reflexive here? Let the man speak. From what I see, the Whiteness Studies people attempt to define White indentity as one of exclusion, when that's totally not true, it's about self-indentification and inclusion as part of a group, like any other people. Most White people are proud to be White because of who they are, where their family came from, White culture and accomplishments, and genetics passed down to them by parents etc. It's purely logical. Everyone does this and is proud of who they are. For someone to say White is only a "construct", well they must not be White, or trying to destroy the indentity for some reason. The White indentity exists, sorry to some to hear I guess, and millions of people have it. But it's not about exclusion, it's about who we are and where we came from. Wikipedia in 2005 should focus on what White means in 2005, not focus on Chinese being considered White in isolated cases, or Germans being considered non-White? That belongs in Whiteness Studies. Icemountain 20:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The word white in Latin is Albion. Which is what the Romans called Britain upon conquering it in 46 AD!!! Sometime after Jesus died. These classes of races like Indo-European, Causcasion North African are simply ways to put the"white" into history. And of course we know that they had no written language, just what the Romans said about them at the time. The other word used by Rome was Barbarian. We can clear alot of this up due to Dna testing for melanin, which is something whites&albinos have very little of. The dna testing of King Tut was not released due to not wanting to let the world know that he was not a white or even mixed person!! Races have been diluted over the years but lets get it right. Europeans from Europe proper we're not in the game until 46AD!
This left-liberal accusation made by the anonymous poster in the previous section is in actuality another "pre-emptive" atttempt to dominate the direction Wikipedia is going. I agree that Wikipedia is not very neutral in the manner of history, and race. However, the leanings are too far to the "right". In addition, too much of the Wikipidia contributions are done in surreptitious ways and with dishonorable intentions. Our anonymous poster above is an example of how "right" wing ideologues have a pre-determined goal of controlling racial, historical and political topics. I know that this anonymous commentator is only interested in having the Anglo-American perspective upheld as the perspective with the veto power, the unltimate and sole deciding factor in the racial, historical and political articles. This must not come to pass.
Other examples of flat out rhetorical manipultion of a "right wing" nature is the use of "race riots" to describe just about every massacre in America that befell African Americans. The insistance on describing Ancient Egyptians as a Caucasoid civilization with only external Sub-saharan admixture.
I (a black contributor) expected an underhanded tactic like your comments to somehow respond to the recent changes to this article. If you lived in Astoria, you would know that Greek people do not resemble Irishmen and look more bi-racial than Indo-European, and they do not view themselves as White, much of the Arab population does not consider itself to be white.
== Dear self-hating black: I never said Greeks generally resemble Irishmen. My point from the beginning has been that that while one could readily determine the race of a statue (ie. both Greek and Irish statues are obviously caucasian), the specific ethnicicty remains ambiguous. I said Irishmen can generally be readily distinguished from Greeks in the flesh, but laymen would not in general be able to tell whether a statue was of Greek or Irish origin - it's just a marble white guy.
I certainly see a difference in the sculpture of Ancient Egyptians (who are also artifically dropped into the Caucasoid category) compared to the sculptures of Romans. Greeks also vary widely in their apprearances. If the recent absurdity of the Tutankhamun reconstruction is any indication, the objectivity of the European scholar is usually lost when they are aware of the cultural implications. It's no coiencidence that the blind studies of Tut had him appear more black looking. So no, this isn't a white-self-guilt-left-wing problem you are dealing with. This is worldwide experience, and we are not so naive as to merely sit and wait for your perspective to "tolerate".
You don't like the notion "that the 'white race' is essentially a Nordic conspiracy to disenfranchsie everyone darker than a Frenchman." Then I'll tell you what, you invent a time machine, go back in time, and stop your ancestors from passing laws in Virginia and elsewhere that do just that. Stop YOUR people from creating organizations that colonized and plundered people all for the virtue of "not being White". And finally, stop YOUR ancestors from passing laws, and dicating ideas that every civilization in the world was created and maintained by some Nordic based ruling class. You don't like this notion, but you seem to have amnesia, as it is essentially the white nordic perspective (Eurocentrism) that has created the "white race". If not them, then who? Did Africans, or Asians, or some Native Americans force white people to be defined as "purely of Indo-European" descent?
What you dislike is seeing white people analyzed, broken down and clarified just as easily as black people, asians, and others. You are not above critical analysis, despite the fact that you will, without hesitation, analyze and draw conclusions of other races of people regardless if your conclusions are inconsistent and flat out wrong. Still you will do everything in your power to uphold them. This use of rhetoric on your part is only one phase of a broader campaign here in Wikipedia to unilaterally control the way the content is presented. Once Wikipedia is "right winged" then it becomes nothing more than a tool to maintain the status quo, Whites on top dictating the content, blacks and others having little or no say. Your cry of reverse-racism, or Afrocentrism, or white-liberalism, is nothing more than a smoke screen.
Although I agree that race is nothing more than the identification of people in groups based on their appearance, I disagree that you can rely on their appearances (especially from a statue) to deterime which 'race' they fall in. After all, it's absurd to me to take a person from East India, or Ethiopia, and categorize them as a "Caucasoid" despite the fact they resemble in no way an Irish-man. So what happens then is that right-wing ideologues, in their quest to preserve the white identity from eventual assimilation into the world, recategorize "white" to include people who have historically been outside of white identity. To be "Caucasoid" is to be somehow a part of a more sophisticated form of humanity.
The reason why this article was recently updated was because it had to be consistent with the corresponding article on Black People. -- 208.254.174.148 07:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
==LOL! I happen to be of Greek heritage, and while I now live in New Jersey, I am well aware of the large Greek and Cypriot population in Astoria Queens. Your suggestion that Greeks look 'bi-racial' and do not view themselves as White is absolute nonsense. This claim would be absurd anywhere, but it is particularly absurd in the context of NYC, where the vast majority of whites are of the swarthy Med type (Italians, Jews etc.) You sound like a self hating black guy, trying to feel better about being black by suggesting that dark whites are really light blacks. Pathetic but funny. And as far as Greeks in general not resembling Irishmen, I made this very point myself in my initial comments when I said race describes those characteristics that canbe captured by statue - you can usually tell a Greek from an Irishman in the flesh but most layman would never be able to distinguish an ancient Irish statue from an ancient Greek statue. It's worth pointing out however, that there are Irish who could readily pass for Greek and Greeks who could pass for Irish. The swarthy Irish actor Colin Farrel of course recently played Alexander the Great (imagine how a Greek audience would react to a 'bi-racial actor in that role? LOL!), and famous Greek-Americans such as Bob Costas and John Stamos could easily pass for Irish. Take pride in your own heritage- stop envying the cultures of others -it's obvious and pathetic. By the way, there are plenty of readily recognizable lily white Arab-Americans as well, such as the prototypical 'white frat boy' QB Doug Flutie, arch neo-con John Sununu and icon of the 1950's nulcear family TV hour, Danny Thomas (not to mention his daughter, Marlo Thomas). Speaking of icons of lily-white 1950's nulcear family TV, nobody ever regarded Desi and Lucy as an interracial couple.
Excuse me, I know that you are wrong. I spent some time in Queens doing some research on my family tree and I met a few Greeks-Americans that run a catering service and they do NOT view themselves as WHITE.
-- LOL. You spent 'some time' in Queens? I AM a Greek-American and I was BORN in Astoria. I have spent half my life there. Your suggestion that Greeks don't identify as White is insane. Morever, one does not need to be pale to be 'white' - most Greeks and other Meds are relatively swarthy (ie. they have dark eyes, hair, tan well etc.). This does not mean they aren't white. In fact, in NYC, most whites are either Meds or Jews and tend to have relatively dark complexions (as whites go). They are still unambiguously white. 'White' is just a euphemism for Caucasian- it doesn't require one to be pale or Nordic in appearance. By your twisted logic, Richard Nixon's first vice president (the Swarthy Greek-American Spiro Agnew) was 'non-white' (imagine?), and Jackie Onassis's marriage to Greek shipping Tycoon Aristotle Onassis after JKF died was 'interracial' (who knew?). Give it up dude - you're making an ASS of yourself. By the way, thanks for admitting Telly Savalas never looked white to you - this places all of your other coments into their proper perspective;)
I do not imagine that during the last century Greek people were not white. There are many ethnic groups that were not considered white back then. Imagine being arab, from Egypt living in the US in 1902, or a Sicilian, or a Yemeni. They were not White....
... What you are trying to do is not argue with "my" logic, but argue instead with the logic of white people over the past century. Judges, congressmen, scientists, etc. Your greek background may be on one side of the arguement, but I have met other greeks who do not identify as white, and you can call it insane or not. You think a "swarthy" complexioned Greek is more "white" than a "lightskinned" African, because what, their skull is shaped slightly differently? I don't say these Greeks are black, I say merely they are not white. Your definition of whiteness is centered around skulls and regional location. Skin color is not a factor. So you and I are having two different conversations. I showed you examples below, and I fail to see how those people, being "swarthy" are white by virtue of living in Europe and having a Caucasoid skull. And you know what? that whole skull shape nonsense is where the racial argument leads to myths about intelligence and IQ testing. I'm starting to see the link here, and why Caucasoids have been associated outside of Europe with "being slightly more bright" than non-caucasoids in Africa and across Asia. Why is "race and intelligence" still a part of the links in this article anyway? We will clear this up sooner or later. I'll be gone for a while, have fun without me.--
Zaphnathpaaneah
05:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
They are very familiar actually with the whole racial game of trying to place them inside a white identity, and they seem to be unable to relate to it. I met a doctor, who looks very pale, (Irish) and he does not consider himself white, a computer analyst, in fact, just about every Greek i DO know, making it plainly clear, they do not consider themselves WHITE.
They view their background as something other than white and they do not feel a part of white identity. They told me about ...
... growing up were treated differently, not as white.
Unless they are doing what everyone else is doing, that is going after $$$ and fame. And with that in mind, you aren't going to find the everyday Greek or a famous Greek portrayed on the screen by anything other than either a "white" or a "white looking" greek. Nowadays Greeks of darker complexion are not goin to be on TV other than as provincal stereotypes (the Balki typecast). TV in general is not a good reliable non-biased representation of people of color. Usually they are made up, hair colored, and reimaged to de-ethnicitize. So if we find some older pictures of greeks and local pics.... oh lets say like these:
http://www.symidream.com/NG/People%202/images/Greek%20boy2_jpg.jpg I know a bi-racial child that is identical in appearance to this picture. He does not look Irish, nor German.
Telly Savalas has never looked white to me. In fact, he http://www.mountaintimes.com/mtweekly/2005/0630/muegel_PeopleGreekIconPainter.gif - another. http://www.mustrad.org.uk/graphics/bellou.jpg http://www.dam.brown.edu/people/yiannis/IMAGES/StelKaz.jpg
Oh but let me guess, the only "real" greeks are the ones with the "doric" phenotype right?
I understand there are greeks out there that blend in, that's to be expected, you can find anybody that has round eyes and fair skin trying to pass for white (regardless of their background). That does not close the issue, and it certainly does not give you license to drop all people of a particular nationality into a category. I know my history, and Greek people were not white in the states at the turn of the century. -- 208.254.174.148 03:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
You're not very perceptive - which part of LAYMEN don't you undertand? This is not about art or history or even about sculpture for that matter, save but for the fact that 'race' describes essentially those aspects of appearance that can be captured in statue. This belies the claim of 'Whiteness studies' types that race is somehow an entirely 'arbitrary' and 'fluid' 'construct' with no anchor in objective reality. What I have said about race being essentially such features as can be captured by statue is a readily observable fact that will resonate with anyone reading this, which rather nicely cuts through the BS and subterfuge of so much of the nonsense and revisionism posted here. No opinionated posts at 'Talk: Tutankkamon' (lol - nothing is more of a magnet for anthropological revisionists than topics involving Egypt) will change the fact that, for instance, the Statue of Liberty is readily recognizable as a Caucasian woman and NOT someone from the far east or Subsaharan Africa, and she could be just as easily imagined Greek as Irish.
You guys can't even decide what "race" is.
You lie. From the beginning, I have maintained that Race describes those aspects of appearance that are captured by statue - a statue's race is usually obvious while the specific ethnicity is not.
Come on guys, define it. Is it the shape of the skull, the hue of the skin, the region your ancestors lived in? You can't figure out where the "dark skinned whites" end and the "lightskinned blacks" begin.
It has less to do with the hue of the skin or the region one's ancestors lived in than the shape of the skull, though the domain of the white race is essentially all of Europe, plus North Africa, the Near East and South Asia. Dark skinned whites end rather abrubtly below North Africa. If there is a 'border region' where the people (while definitely black) have both Negroid and Caucasoid features, that would be perhaps the horn of Africa (ie. Ethopia, Somalia).
You have these half-african people that are classified as Caucasoid whites in history, and even pass for white today, but only 30 years ago they were undeniably black.
Nonsense - name one such group. This is the essence of the dishonesty of Whiteness studies, which argues that those included under the banner of 'white' has been more exclusive in the past. In fact, the increasingly common perception of relatively dark whites (ie. 'Hispanics', Arabs - to a much lesser extent Southern Europeans) as something other than 'white' is a very recent phenomenon, stemming largely from the recent tendency in American media to sloppily lump together Latin Americans of mixed race with pure Spaniards as a single racial group ('Hispanics' or 'Latinos'). In actual fact, in America, 'Hispanic' is not a racial but linguistic category, and the U.S. census clearly states that Hispanics can be of any race. Spanish "Hispanics' are and have always been classified as 'white'. As I pointed out before, the 1950's are often imagined as the peak of lilly white intolerance in America, and the popular TV show of this period "Ozzy and Harriet" is often used as a metaphor for this period. How telling it is then that in fact, far more popular than "Ozzie and Harriet" was "I Love Lucy", starring Cuban Desi Arnaz and red headead wife Lucy, and "Make Room For Daddy", starring openly Lebanese Danny Thomas. NOBODY regarded Desi or Danny as 'non-white' at the time, or their on screen (and off screen) marriages as 'interracial', nor could either show be remotely construed as 'controversial' or pushing ethnic envelopes or the boundaries of American tolerance. Who can deny that these same shows, had they aired today (in the modern era of PC, revisionist anthropology), would be described as 'controversial' shows featuring 'interracial' marriages testing the boundaries of American tolerance. The PC, 'Whiteness studies' left is engaging in pure Orwellian revisionism in an attempt to Balkanize America.
Lets wait another 30 years and lets see how the "race is real" experts try to mix it up for the next generation. -- 208.254.174.148 03:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Paul, even this distorted perspective of "Lady Liberty's" face you posted (it's so warped her sex is ambiguous- yet her race is still obvious - more proof of my point!) is still clearly Caucasian. That you should find it racially ambiguous is revealing, and undermines the credibility of all of your preceding comments regarding race, placing them in their proper context. I'm glad you posted the pic - it will reinforce my point to most viewers/readers that the idea of race describes those features that are captured by sculpture. Even in your warped angle pic, this is clearly a Caucasian face, not a southeast Asian or Subsaharan African. That this white icon is inspired by Greek sculpture is a delicious fact I was unaware of - thank you for further proving my point! The obviously white woman depicted by the statue of Liberty is based upon Greek sculptures - I'll have to remember that - thanks Paul!
However, I must say that your latter comment about the racial designation of persons of mixed race being arbitrary is quite reasonable. In fact, I also agree that the idea of race can be needlessly devisive - I prefer to focus on what people have in common rather than what separates them. But this is quite different than suggesting that there is no such thing as a white or caucasian race, or that Greeks are racially ambiguous, or that the idea of 'white' has historically been limited to Nordics, all of which is sheer revisionist nonsense. In closing, I ask all to take note of the shameless hypocrisy of how the same folks who argue that racial differences are either exagerated or insignificant or nonexistent nevertheless DEMAND that we acknowledge significant differences between Southern and Northern Europeans.
People are talking past each other on this article. I believe there is a place for two articles: 1) content that includes the whiteness studies concepts and 2) another that isn't negative and summarizes White people in an article that covers Etymology, Culture, Population, Languages, History, Countries, Famous Whites and accomplishments (and failures). I'd suggest the White people article be based on the same format used for other entho-religious groupings, (see a model format at Jew).
A basis for the article should be uncontroversial and what is generally accepted globally: "A common element to the various definitions of "White" today, is that the term refers to a person of European descent. Also generally associated with white people are European culture, Christianity (whether as a religion or part of their cultural heritage) and Western Civilization." Now, OF COURSE there are exceptions, but they should not come to rule the content of the article at the expense of providing general, encyclopedic and useful information to readers about White people-- past, present and future. We do exist. Icemountain 19:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem with finding the format is that the other ethno-religious groups do not fit the same premises. Jews are a religious group, with a clear distinction. Arabs and HIspanic are a linguistic groups. Black people fit two groupings. White people seem to fit a social order, and not a ethno-religious group. Because many of the ethno-religious groups can contain white people, and many white people can be a part of these groups. Christianity is certainly NOT a part of what makes a white person white. There is no place in the world where a non Christian, fitting the other descriptions would be considered NOT white. No way an Irish Muslim, or a German Hindu, or a Swedish buddhist will be considered "non" white. I have never ever ever heard of a European fitting all of the other agreed descriptions, being 'excluded' from being white for lack of being non-christian. I have never ever ever or heard of a middle easterner from Lebanon, or Chaldean, or Coptic Christian, be socially accepted as "white" because they are Christian, only if their features fit within an "acceptable zone" of whiteness regardless of religion, would they be "white" or not. I contest the Christian aspect and do not feel it should be included. Christianity in fact has become more synonymous with Latinos, and Ethiopians now than with whiteness. I honestly think that those who wish to maintain some endogamous link with whiteness and Christianity are doing so out of a political agenda, and not an objective methodology.
People think that Black and White people are both polar opposites or have identical descriptors. If white people are known to like chocolate, then someone will want to talk about how black people "logically" should like vanilla (or dislike chocolate), or at the very least they will want to put ice cream into the black people article. A silly example, but the point is many people want to describe Black people also as a "social order" in a way, but it is not. Black people are an ethnic group. White people are a social order, and is purely based on skin color and facial phenotype. I could really be from anywhere in the world, and be white if I have light to pale skin, and if my eyes are round, and if I show no obvious features that identify my ancestry coming from Africa, Aboriginal Australia, or the Far East (all groups that fit within a Eurocentric social order). In many countries, like Brazil, Whiteness is purely a social-economic identity. Now the U.S. Census is trying to use a strictly regional parental descriptor to designate who is white. My mother could look like Shaka Zulu's sister, but if her family was born in Egypt, she would be "white", and thus so would I, "legally". See "Mostafa Hefny". It seems to me that a lot of white people want their group to BE a "ethnicity" because either they feel its unfair, or the lack of an ethnicity puts their identity in a bad light. But thats how their social group was designed, over time, it included and excluded ethnic groups based on social and political sensibilities. There is no religious, ethnic, historical, anthropological or logical context to it. Currently in this generation, it seems to be now just based on an exclusive "look" and less a regional proximity to Europe (along with the look)... oh and a don't ask don't tell policy regarding non-European heritage (the importance of this varies). -- 68.60.55.162 20:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC) Zaph
I suppose, but if they unilaterally update the article, then they will activate me, and upon activation, I exhibit chaotic, scathing, unrepentant etiquette free run on sentances that ultimately polarize the discourse while simultaneously annhiliate the offender's position. -- 68.60.55.162 22:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
An interesting statistic has emerged. 60% of whites are Christian, another 40% are Muslim, thanks to the U.S. census. Half a billion Muslims live in Europe North Africa and Middle East (white areas). Sooner or later, there will be more white Muslims than white Christians. Now guys, what were we talking about? --
68.60.55.162
21:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
--Frankly, considering that most Europeans are agnostic, and most Muslims are white (yes, the indigenous population of North Africa and the Middle East is and has always been caucasian- certainly not Negroid or Mongolid), I suspect that there are already more white Muslims than white Christians and this has probably been the case for quite some time.
You have a long way from assuming that the Middle East and Egypt is and always has been caucasian. http://www.saudi-american-forum.org/images/Newsletters/Supp20030430b.jpg - Saudi Prince http://www.nku.edu/~waltersd/images/yemen%20photo%20album/pages/girls.htm - http://www.peterlanger.com/People/Africans/pages/EGASW010.htm - Egypt (as if i need to be posting Egyptian examples) http://www.courses.psu.edu/art_h/art_h111_bac18/head.jpg - Giza 2250 BC I'm not going to go through this same argument. You need to catch up with the times. Egyptians and Arabs have not always been caucasoid. The Caucasoid presence in Egypt has steadily INcreased (not decreased) over time. -- 208.254.174.148 04:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Gee, that post warning about anthropological revisionist politics sure struck a nerve, didn't it? The raving protests that followed it have done nothing but prove the point - which I find delicious. Keep it up;)
See what happens when my commitment to REAL neutrality is addressed. White people is a disupted page, finally. The bias on here finally could be viewed when you take all the "variables" out and compare constants. I'm still not going to interfere for the time being, I want to see how you wonderful people resolve this conflict. -- 208.254.174.148 02:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Someone (above) wrote, "Black people are an ethnic group. White people are a social order, and is purely based on skin color and facial phenotype," thereby implying that "White" is not an ethnicity.
It may be of interest that, when asked to identify their “ethnic heritage” on the census long form, fewer than one percent of Americans claim to be “White.” The most popular choices of ethnicity are: German (23.3%), Irish (15.6%), English (13.1%), African-American (10.0%), and Italian (5.9%). In other words speaking mathematically, self-assessed “Blacks” are among the four largest “majorities” in America (pluralities, actually) and the term “White” is insignificantly buried just below Puerto Ricans and Slovaks (0.7%) and just above Danes and Hungarians (0.6%). (This factoid is available from the Census Bureau website or in any Almanac. My own desktop reference is Borgna Brunner, ed. Time Almanac: The Ultimate Worldwide Fact and Information Source (Boston, 1999) 364.)
The same person (above) wrote, "the point is many people want to describe Black people also as a "social order" in a way, but it is not. Black people are an ethnic group." This explicitly claims that "Black" (in contrast to "White") is an ethnicity. Nothing could be further from the truth. The claim is worse than false; it is unintelligible. The inaccuracy lies in the word "Black." If the poster meant his use of the term to denote "African American" then the claim is accurate. The African-American ethnic community has a long and well-documented history from its origins in the 1750-1830 northeast, through its full expression in the Jacksonian era, to its Reconstruction-era assimilation of traditions of the freedmen and Creole elite of the lower South.
But given that the poster avoided the term "African American," his wording clearly implies that all members of the African Diaspora throughout the globe, plus all people around the world who "look black" to him (even those without African ancestry), plus all the people around the world whom he thinks self-identify as "black" in some local socio-political squabble, that all of these are members of some vast global multilingual, multicultural, multireligious umbrella ethnicity. This is arrant Eurocentrism/Afrocentrism without a shred of falsifiable evidence. -- Frank W Sweet 13:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
In a revision as of 21:45, 27 December 2005, contributor "88.111.78.218" removed Keanu Reeves as an example of an American seen by most as White, despite having a part-Chinese father. Why was this example removed? -- Frank W Sweet 22:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Not having received an answer, I restored the reference. -- Frank W Sweet 11:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Probably because he doesn't have too many fature that is consider as "Asian" by the American????????
If we are going to question whether Gloria Reubens is African-American or Jamaican-Canadian, then it would seem the racial issue is whether her ancestry is African or Jamaican, while the question of -American versus -Canadian is one of nationality. From her photo, she appears to be a mix of white and black, but calling her African-American is a different issue from caller her Black. 1 January 2006 1:12 am (PST)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I suggest a person participating here, who classifies themselves as a white person should submit a photo of themselves. Is there a white person here who will submit a photo of themselves? Spookwaffe
The photo now is absurd. Does anyone know of any copyright-free photograph showing one or more white people who aren't famous? We need a photograph here, not a painting of the Declaration of Independence signing. Give me a break. Moncrief 23:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
How about the Judd's?
Here we go again -- somebody named DonSiano keeps insisting on putting the freaking Venus by Botticelli on this page. I shouldn't have to point out all the reasons why this is inappropriate, but here goes:
ThePedanticPrick 21:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Arguably, this phrase is the most common use of "White" in the USA today, and its history says a good deal about the history of the term "White" itself, so I think it makes sense to have information on it. It is not exactly analogous to "Nigger" etc. because it is understood to mean a subset of whites and not the whole group. It is usually used today in contexts where it is humorous and only mildly offensive. -- JWB 16:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia: White trash (extended: poor white trash; acronym: "WT") is an ethnic slur or racial epithet usually used to describe certain low income persons of European descent....."
The White Trash article is about a ethnic slur and epithet. I would disagree that it has "lots of good analysis". Most of that article is completely unsourced and non-encyclopedic in nature. Icemountain 18:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
The term "white trash" has very little to do with race and almost everything to do with socio-economic status. As such, it would seem to have little relevance to this page. I'm staying neutral on this issue, however, at least until I hear some better arguments. ThePedanticPrick 19:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Certain misguided bigots keep trying to include the following link in the external links section: [1] They claim it is a mere "History of the White Race", which it is not. The plain agenda of that site is to convince its readers that racial mixing will destroy western civilization as we know it, leaving our cities in ruin and our societies dissolved by violence. I haven't bothered to read the whole thing (I also don't need to drink a whole gallon of milk to know whether or not it's rotten), but the thesis is clear from a reading of the home page and the conclusion sections. I'll grant that the External Links section doesn't have to be NPOV, as does the rest of the article, but I must object to the actions of bigots to disguise their hatred as "History". To claim that I am espousing a POV by describing their favorite Web site as "a white-separatist site that discourages racial mixing" is the most blatant hypocrisy. Those are the kindest terms I could find to describe the beliefs that site is promoting. If you find the terms "white-separatism" and "anti-miscegenation" offensive, then maybe you could explain to me the nature of your bigoted beliefs. If, indeed, you don't think the white race is superior or that whites should not mix with "inferior" non-whites, then let's get rid of that link and discuss some real history. If not, then at least be honest about who you are. White sheets and pointy hoods are for sissies. ThePedanticPrick 19:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
The site is obviously racist, so it shouldn't be in the "Links" section simply as "A History of the White Race". Maybe "For an example of the kind of thinking engendered by [racist concept], see...". In the meantime I have removed it. Jer ome 07:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course that site is a racist nest. This guy there is a charlatan. A similar site is the following, which happens to be a parody of that one, but at least funny: http://www.sitesled.com/members/racialreality/medish/index.html#gallery
I removed the part that said there were signifcant white populations there because it has become antiqudated. I'm sure it was accurate at the time it was written but now both these countries have greater than 90% black populations and less than 4% white. For a country of 2 million people I don't 4% white people would be considered signifcant. You wouldn't say Canada had a signifcant black population because they have 5% blacks right.
I also removed the part about Mark Shriver because it is inconsistent with other artilces one race. Particularly the aritlce on blacks said that most black in Americas have white ancestry which is contradictory to what Shriver study SUGGEST (Not proves). Maybe Shriver is right but he even claims his own study as a suggestion and not fact. I suggest that whoever put this in talk to the person who created the part of the black article so wiki doesn't look like it is made up by a bunch of white and black supremist.
I don't know who put back in that whites make up a siginifcant % of the population of Zimbabwe but if you have any evidence please present it. Although this may have been true 20-30 years ago this is a country that is 98% black people this is taken from StatsZimbabawe and anyone can go verify that. I'm sorry but 1% of a population is not significant. We don't say that Italia or Greece has a significant black population it just silly to consider 1% as signifcant. You might be wondering what the other 1% of people are they are a variety of backgrounds like chinese and indians
I've noticed a lot of edit wars going on over the paragraph about who is (or has been) considered white in Latin-American countries. I'm familiar with the caste system of Haiti that placed mulattoes above full-blacks, but I never heard of them being called white. I'm also going to need to see a credible source for this idea that "any white admixture rendered a person white". I know human nature and I've lived around a lot of latinos and spaniards, and I just don't see them saying "Ok, your grandmother was white, you're white now too. Welcome to the ruling class!" But that's just my impression. How about we get some good sources here instead of just reverting back and forth? ThePedanticPrick 16:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with TPP on bringing some sources in for some of the statements. Icemountain 00:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
There's some back and forth going on in the sentence about Hispanics being excluded from the definition of "white". I tend to think that all or most hispanics are seen as non-white, even the very light-skinned european-looking ones, due to their association with the mestizo and mulatto members of this minority group. I'd venture to say that only the blondest spaniards and argentinians could be accepted as white in this country, and that a lot of dark-haired, olive-skinned spaniards would be excluded. It's strange that the US is so race-conscious that they've turned "Hispanic" into a quasi-racial category, when it's simply a linguistic-cultural designation(the Census is aware of this, most Americans are not). Anyway, enough about my opinions and impressions, can we get some independent data on this? Maybe a survey of European-Spanish immigrants who say they are being treated as non-white? Something along those lines? ThePedanticPrick 16:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
"Furthermore, while South Asians are also an anthropologically caucasoid people."
Gawd, this is the pinnicale of the stuff that sets me off. South Asians are not anthropologically caucasoid. They vary. Do we need to get into this? It is obvious at this point (in Wiki land) that "Caucasoid" is being substituted for "White". I had an edit war on the Caucasoid link becuse someone wanted to force Ethiopians to be Caucasoid (and thus White). Veddic, Dalits, and the half dozen different types of Australoid people in Asia are NOT Caucasoids. The magic word here is intensionalism, you can't make "Caucasoid" mean "everyone with round eyes and wavy to straight hair". Their skulls don't resemble. GOD!!!!! - -- 208.254.174.148 13:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Zaph
Well the whole thing centers around what the English speaking American and NorthEast European thinks. If they say no North Africans allowed, then we have no choice but to obey their rules. Me personally, I rather shrink their size, and for that reason I also find North Africans to be "not" white. Whiteness expands and contracts by the desires of the American European mindset which needs the numbers from time to time to use as demographic leverage in statistics and social policy. -- 208.254.174.148 01:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC) Zaph
-- 142.161.64.231 21:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Well, the thing is they have all the feature that most simliar to caucasoid, and not even close to mongoloid and africanoid, so yah.... they are close to Caucasoid. im sorry
--Caucasian is NOT a color! Caucasian is a Race! Race is the features, the shape and anthropological bio-metrics of any living being. A red Apple and a green Apple, have different colors, but they both are still Apples. A green apple and a green bananna are NOT the same! Even if their colors are the same, their Race (shape & features) are NOT the same. Likewise, East Indians and Europeans are both Caucasian. Except one is white the other is brown, dark brown and some are as light as white european. Regardless of their coloring, the East Indians have the same features as white europeans. Or shall I say the white europeans have the same features as most of the east indians and middle easterners, excluding the oriental and negro ones. So enough of this un-educated, low IQ talk of color having anything to do with race. Europeans, North Africans, Middle Easterners, Russians, Central Asians and East Indians all fall into the Caucasian Race. Although not all of those groups are the white ones of the Caucasian Race. The Caucasian Race is: White Europeans, North Africans (Egyptians & Algerians), Middle Easterners, Russians, Central Asians and East Indians. Just like Apples come in different colors, so do Caucasians. A Green Apple is the same Race as a Red Apple. A Green Apple is NOT the same Race as a Green Bananna.
"Whites are also nearly unique in that they exhibit a variety of hair and eye colours. In parts of the world north of 50° North latitude, sunlight is low and weak enough that people (and white coloured polar animals for that matter) with blond hair, blue eyes, and pale skin have an advantage over those with darker colouration. Benefits include resistance to rickets, possibly frostbite, and a suggested aesthetic appeal"
...higher asthetic appeal for Europeans as a kind of natural selection... Tell me what you think. Does the wind really blow differently when it approaches a blonde haired human? Maybe the polar bears are nicer to the lighterskinned humans.... or maybe when a European passes gas, it really does smell more asthetically pleasing because it's coming out of a pale skinned body? The authori suggests that whites are more asthetically pleasing, because the white people themselves insist that it is, and well, circular reasoning is always asthetically pleasing.
I just wonder, when someone posts this stuff, and tries to blend it in to the rest of the objective material... when the rest of you guys read it, doesn't somebody question it? I mean does it pop up in your minds "hey, thats not objective, that bias!". I mean yes, the word "suggested" is put in there, but WHO is doing the suggesting? After all, someone is going to respond that the thing should be left "as is" because well, the word "suggest" is used to "balance" the pov. But heck, people suggest all sorts of things. I'm sure NAZI scientists suggested a certain asthetic appeal, but we need some factual references to this, and I doubt we are going to find a factual scientific basis to promote the idea that blonde-blue-light skin is more asthetically appealing to anyone besides the white people themselves (self promoting), or those in the rest of the world who believe that there is some inherent "goodness" factor for their children/grandchildren to be part-white.
I am putting a controversal flag on this discussion, as it's apparent that the discussions on this topic has warranted it.
Zaph
I'm not going to edit this out since this is flagged as "controversial" and I suspect in any case that it's there to draw people's attention, but really, does this belong in the article: "...a suggested aesthetic appeal to... um... the blonde haired descendants and their colonized victims, whom they had berated for three centuries that they are more asthetically appealing." KathL 20:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I certainly agree with you. I took it out. Glad you agree. I wondeer why someone would have put "a certain asthetic appeal" into the article in the first place.-- 68.60.55.162 05:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC) Zaph
Gentlemen, I offer three comments on this topic: one regarding "esthetic appeal," one about latitude, and one about the relevance of skin tone to this article.
FrankWSweet, the only problem I have with your essay is that you claim that the only solid proof of skin tone at certain times in the past would be in the form of artwork. You claim that "the hunting scene above, one of many examples showing dark-brown bowmen shooting medium-brown deer, was painted in what is now France fifteen to thirteen millennia ago. Judging by the artists’ palettes, Europeans then had not yet lost their brown complexion," and thus that the limited colors available to Neolithic cave painters reflects the artists skin tone. This is illogical, and is contradicted by a recent study that is cited in a section below:
[5]. As you can see, according to this study, the mutation for white skin is at least 20,000 years old. Genetic analysis is much more concrete proof of the age of certain genetically-determined phenotypes than cave-art (besides, the color of the hunters and the deer that are in the photo in your essay look the same to me, and any perceived difference would be subjective). Furthermore, you quote that “the first depiction of variable pigmentation in man dates back to about 1300 BC and was found on the walls of the tomb of Sethos I,” and mention the depiction of the pale Lady Nofret predating these wall paintings to argue that these are the earliest proofs of white skin, when the quote clearly states "depiction", and in no way suggests that this is proof of the earliest appearance of white skin. And if white skin first appeared around the Baltic and North seas, would it make sense to find proof of the earliest white skin in Egypt? I don't have an education in genetics, so I don't have any other problems with your paper; and I've heard the meat/dairy vs. grain-based diet account of skin-tone discrepency between populations at the same latitude before, but you're argument about artwork as proof of the age of certain physical traits just stands out as poor reasoning. --
Jugbo
00:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Original paragraph:
Due to the historic one drop rule in the United States, people with any known admixture of African origin have always been catergorised as black, including mulattos and quadroons, or octoroons. In Europe, these same people would always be classed as 'mixed race'—a blanket term for all people with any multiple racial heritage. Meanwhile, in Latin American countries like Cuba, the Dominican Republic, or Brazil, they may be considered, and may consider themselves, white.
Comments
1. The statement “people with any known admixture of African origin have always been catergorised as black” is a bit strong. “Always” could refer to our emergence as a species 160 kya. As pointed out in the wikipedia article on “one drop rule,” the notion of invisible Blackness was not widely known nor made statutory until the 20th century.
2. The use of the term “known admixture” is misleading. About one-third of Americans who self-identity as “White” have detectable recent African admixture of which they are unaware but which is common knowledge among molecular anthropologists (see http://backintyme.com/essay040608.htm). No one would consider them “Black.” “Known ancestry,” on the other hand, suggests openly acknowledged Black heritage, which many Americans do see as making you Black.
3. The phrase “including mulattos and quadroons, or octoroons” is unnecessary. Altering it to read “any known African ancestry” would just make it redundant.
4. The three sentences summarizing the pre-20th-century criteria of membership in the U.S. White endogamous group clarify that the notion of invisible blackness is 20th century, and did not “always” exist.
5. The statement “In Europe, these same people would always be classed as 'mixed race'” is incorrect if it refers to people of trivial African ancestry who look utterly European. Such people are simply “White” anywhere but in the United States. If it refers to people of slight African appearance, then their designation as “mixed” or “coloured” applies also to Asia, Africa, Australia, and South America – not just Europe.
FrankWSweet 14:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey Ped, why didn't I get that glorious fanfare? And isn't amazing how clearly the whole Arab and Latino thing looks in relation to Blackness when we discuss it from a white context? It's pretty "evident" where the lines are drawn! I think you guys should clearly show that whitness is largely determined by proximity to Northeastern Eurasia, and that the strength of white identity is determined by the proximity into that region. You could even narrow it down into a specific circle, of "eternally white" and varying circles of "whiteness" all the way to an outer rim of peripherally white, with everyone else outside the circle, not white, but "closer to being white". You know how to do it! -- 208.254.174.148 10:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Zaph
"anti-White, Race Traitor-positions"? Yes, thank you for being so explicit about your transparent prejudice. Paul B 01:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Gramaic, it is not accurate to say that Middle Easterners resemble Europeans, that's misleading because the vast majority of Middle Easterners who are Muslim Arabs and Perisans are very different from Europeans. So why should it be in an encyclopedia entry when it's the exception rather than the rule? For every Ralph Nader who some view as White, there are hundreds of millions of Arabs and Persians, that aren't considered White by the vast majority of the White world. Icemountain 14:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
[ Spanish leader and Moroccan King]
Gramaic, I really don't think Wikipedia should start going down a slippery slope on this stuff. Suffice it to say, that your opinion that Middle Easterners are White and look like Europeans, even southern Europeans, is your personal opinion. Seriously, kindly stop pushing this controversial view into a Wikipedia encyclopedia article where it is just not appropriate or necessary. Wikipedia is not a place to debate a controversial issue that is not agreed to or vetted. It most definitely is POV. Icemountain 16:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Paul, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a blog. The information that goes in should be vetted. I don't think North Africans look like Southern Europeans, but you do. Do you have a poll of the entire world's opinion on this? Including the views of Middle Easterners? I guess two people can view the above picture and see similarities? Others see differences. Which is the correct picture to refer to? There is no way to vet that kind of POV statement, and so it really is non-encyclopedic. Icemountain 16:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes Icemountain, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We as an encyclopedia must educate the readers that there are Middle Easterners that resemble Europeans. I'm not the one who's pushing anything here, you are. I'm not saying that all Middle Easterners and North Africans resemble Europeans, but many actually do. So stating that there are Middle Easterners and North Afrians who resemble Southern Europeans (and a minority also resemble Northern Europeans) is very NPOV, but denying that there aren't fair skinned, European looking Middle Easterners is the one that is misleading and inaccurate, and also biased. Please reveiw WP:NPOV. -- Gramaic | Talk 01:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Someone at IP 208.254.174.148 added this section to the article. They copied and pasted here from something that I wrote for an entirely different article. I have no objection to the unattributed copying (this is Wikipedia, after all), but the original is inapplicable to this topic. Rather than reverting it, I have tried to adapt it. Specifically, the three Eurocentric/Afrocentric criteria for deciding whether someone is White or Black (ancestry, appearance, self-identity) operate differently (but compementarily) for White than for Black. To be accepted as White in the Eurocentric/Afrocentric view, one must be of mostly European ancestry AND "look White" AND self-identify as White. To be accepted as Black in the Eurocentric/Afrocentric view, one must be of some African ancestry OR "look Black" OR self-identify as Black. A Venn diagram might help to get the point across. -- FrankWSweet 13:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
My father was a Half Breed American Indian, and my mom is a Mixed-Blood(her ancestry consists of Hispanic(Mexican & Spanish),Arab-Jew, Along with Brittish Isle,Scandanavian & Various American Indian groups, so the question remains: am I White? I mean on nearly every legal Document I put White/American Indian or other(which is a very vague definition,I have dark skin(many people think I am a full-blooded Mexican), blue eyes, and a Middle Eastern Nose, though everyone tries to tell me that I "Look Mexican & Act White" my heritage is mainly American Indian I just want to know if everything else I am is White.... Mutt 02:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Revision as of 20:16, 14 December 2005: added "* A History of the White Race - A site that covers 350 centuries of White history and discusses the theory that racial mixing contributes to the downfall of great White civilizations."
Revision as of 20:56, 14 December 2005: removed, "Thus people who are not white in the traditional sense, but have light skin, such as Japanese, Koreans and Northern Chinese may well be able to legitimately describe themselves as white." Also, "(although Greeks, Sicilians, Spaniards and Portuguese are sometimes considered non-White by other Europeans)" Also, "Every New World nation save one (the United States) has a unimodal Afro-European admixture scatter diagram revealing complete mixing of European with African and Native American ancestries.
Revision as of 21:22, 14 December 2005: removed, " In the New World today, however, the White/non-White distinction is cultural, not genetic."
Frank, you are the one that made the above statement, shouldn't you provide a source or basis for it? That statement is controversial and you know it, so how can you possibly justify placing that POV into an encyclopedia? Icemountain 18:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I know what you are saying, and I would hope for compromise and consensus. This article should also clearly articulate what White means in 2005, just as the articles from the 19th Century reflected that period. So I don't see why the emphasis shouldn't be about Whites in 2005, rather than a whiteness studies emphasis. I am working from 2005's most widely accepted idea that European-descended people are White, not my personal definition. I really believe that you should contribute to whiteness studies, because that is primarily what you are focusing on. Thanks. Icemountain 18:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
There were also one or two Icemountain changes that I left in situ. The most important is the elimination or softening of several references to people "looking white" (or not) couched in language that assumed objectivity when judging this. If the studies of Robert Kurzban, John Tooby, and Leda Cosmides have taught us anything, it is that whether someone "looks white" (or not) is in the eye of the beholder. I think it best to avoid saying, for instance, that Middle-eastern Jews "look just like" Middle-eastern Muslims. They dress differently, after all. And anyone who doubts that dress, posture, body language, hair style, and the like can radically change whether someone "looks white" to unprompted subjects has not yet read the literature on "racial" perception. -- Frank W Sweet 15:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Frank, are you going to say that the people that live in Fes are "White" or even that "some" of them are? That all I am getting at. Let's be accurate and not misleading. Icemountain 18:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Icemountain wrote: I believe more White/European history and geography should be incorporated into this article. Why shouldn't this article cover or link to items that relate to White people: such as the history of Spanish reconquest or the issues regarding European colonization of the Americas etc.? Otherwise this just becomes another whiteness studies. Please don't also try to say the Amerindians were white too, because they didn't view themselves as white either! ;-) Icemountain 18:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Icemountain wrote: You are the one that made the above statement [In the New World today, however, the White/non-White distinction is apparently cultural, not genetic, since every New World nation save one (the United States) has a unimodal Afro-European admixture scatter diagram revealing complete mixing of European with African and Native American ancestries.] Shouldn't you provide a source or basis for it? That statement is controversial and you know it, so how can you possibly justify placing that POV into an encyclopedia?Icemountain 18:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Icemountain wrote: This article should ... articulate what White means in 2005, just as the articles from the 19th Century reflected that period. So I don't see why the emphasis shouldn't be about Whites in 2005, rather than a whiteness studies emphasis. I am working from 2005's most widely accepted idea that European-descended people are White, not my personal definition.Icemountain 18:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Icemountain wrote: Frank, are you going to say that the people that live in Fes are "White" or even that "some" of them are?Icemountain 18:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The major change made by Gramaic at 22:58, 15 December 2005 was from this:
to this:
The first problem with the change is that it replaces the specific citing of EEOC and Census Bureau regulations with the blanket statement, "all the aforementioned are always categorised as white by US government agencies and the U.S. census." The use of "all" and "always" make the statement weak and unpersuasive. Worse, it is factually in error; the Census Bureau does not classify anyone as anything. The Bureau allows each respondent to classify themselves however they wish. A secondary problem is the removal of the conclusion that most U.S. voters are in agreement with EEOC regulations. This conclusion is based on the fact that if most voters disagreed, they would express their desires to Congress, the appropriate Congressional committee would review the regulations, and the Executive Branch would implement Congressional wishes. This sort of adjustment to regulations happens virtually every day and, in fact, was the mechanism whereby the census was changed to allow "check all races that apply." Finally, rest of Gramaic's changes removed objective phrasing regarding appearance and replaced it with subjective phrasing and the obsolete term "caucasoid." -- Frank W Sweet 01:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia has come under scrutiny in recent weeks, and it is about time. While it has always been a reasonably accurate source of information with respect to technical and to a lesser extent hard science topics, it tends to be little better than an opininated news group when it comes to topics in the areas of the humanities, particularly topics relating to history, politics, anthropology, race, religion, etc. Here it tends to reflect the POV of the American academic hard left rather than anything approaching an objective appraisal of reality.
The issue of race in particular tends to be described at Wikipedia from the POV of "Whiteness studies". This is a relatively recent and controversial "field" created by American academics openly identifying as left wing which presents itself as the critical evaluation of 'the concept of Whiteness', but which in fact tends to boil down to a new religion whose chief article of faith is the idea that the 'white race' is essentially a Nordic conspiracy to disenfranchsie everyone darker than a Frenchman. Unfortunately, topics relating to race in particular tend to be contributed disproportionatley by far left, Anglo-American academics of the 'white lib guilt' variety.
The bottomline is, the concept of 'white' and certainly 'caucasian' is not nearly as 'fluid' or 'arbitrary' as those on the racist left suggest. 'Race' describes essentially those qualities of appearance that can be captured by a statue. Given a gray statue of a human figure, any layman could discern immediately that it was from Europe and not from Sub-Saharan Africa or East Asia, though he might not be able to discern whether it was from ancient Greece or ancient Ireland, even though Greeks can generally be readily distinguished from Irishmen in the flesh.
Sorry, TPP, but I don't think he's talking about "politics", and his comments show critical thinking. Aren't you being slightly reflexive here? Let the man speak. From what I see, the Whiteness Studies people attempt to define White indentity as one of exclusion, when that's totally not true, it's about self-indentification and inclusion as part of a group, like any other people. Most White people are proud to be White because of who they are, where their family came from, White culture and accomplishments, and genetics passed down to them by parents etc. It's purely logical. Everyone does this and is proud of who they are. For someone to say White is only a "construct", well they must not be White, or trying to destroy the indentity for some reason. The White indentity exists, sorry to some to hear I guess, and millions of people have it. But it's not about exclusion, it's about who we are and where we came from. Wikipedia in 2005 should focus on what White means in 2005, not focus on Chinese being considered White in isolated cases, or Germans being considered non-White? That belongs in Whiteness Studies. Icemountain 20:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The word white in Latin is Albion. Which is what the Romans called Britain upon conquering it in 46 AD!!! Sometime after Jesus died. These classes of races like Indo-European, Causcasion North African are simply ways to put the"white" into history. And of course we know that they had no written language, just what the Romans said about them at the time. The other word used by Rome was Barbarian. We can clear alot of this up due to Dna testing for melanin, which is something whites&albinos have very little of. The dna testing of King Tut was not released due to not wanting to let the world know that he was not a white or even mixed person!! Races have been diluted over the years but lets get it right. Europeans from Europe proper we're not in the game until 46AD!
This left-liberal accusation made by the anonymous poster in the previous section is in actuality another "pre-emptive" atttempt to dominate the direction Wikipedia is going. I agree that Wikipedia is not very neutral in the manner of history, and race. However, the leanings are too far to the "right". In addition, too much of the Wikipidia contributions are done in surreptitious ways and with dishonorable intentions. Our anonymous poster above is an example of how "right" wing ideologues have a pre-determined goal of controlling racial, historical and political topics. I know that this anonymous commentator is only interested in having the Anglo-American perspective upheld as the perspective with the veto power, the unltimate and sole deciding factor in the racial, historical and political articles. This must not come to pass.
Other examples of flat out rhetorical manipultion of a "right wing" nature is the use of "race riots" to describe just about every massacre in America that befell African Americans. The insistance on describing Ancient Egyptians as a Caucasoid civilization with only external Sub-saharan admixture.
I (a black contributor) expected an underhanded tactic like your comments to somehow respond to the recent changes to this article. If you lived in Astoria, you would know that Greek people do not resemble Irishmen and look more bi-racial than Indo-European, and they do not view themselves as White, much of the Arab population does not consider itself to be white.
== Dear self-hating black: I never said Greeks generally resemble Irishmen. My point from the beginning has been that that while one could readily determine the race of a statue (ie. both Greek and Irish statues are obviously caucasian), the specific ethnicicty remains ambiguous. I said Irishmen can generally be readily distinguished from Greeks in the flesh, but laymen would not in general be able to tell whether a statue was of Greek or Irish origin - it's just a marble white guy.
I certainly see a difference in the sculpture of Ancient Egyptians (who are also artifically dropped into the Caucasoid category) compared to the sculptures of Romans. Greeks also vary widely in their apprearances. If the recent absurdity of the Tutankhamun reconstruction is any indication, the objectivity of the European scholar is usually lost when they are aware of the cultural implications. It's no coiencidence that the blind studies of Tut had him appear more black looking. So no, this isn't a white-self-guilt-left-wing problem you are dealing with. This is worldwide experience, and we are not so naive as to merely sit and wait for your perspective to "tolerate".
You don't like the notion "that the 'white race' is essentially a Nordic conspiracy to disenfranchsie everyone darker than a Frenchman." Then I'll tell you what, you invent a time machine, go back in time, and stop your ancestors from passing laws in Virginia and elsewhere that do just that. Stop YOUR people from creating organizations that colonized and plundered people all for the virtue of "not being White". And finally, stop YOUR ancestors from passing laws, and dicating ideas that every civilization in the world was created and maintained by some Nordic based ruling class. You don't like this notion, but you seem to have amnesia, as it is essentially the white nordic perspective (Eurocentrism) that has created the "white race". If not them, then who? Did Africans, or Asians, or some Native Americans force white people to be defined as "purely of Indo-European" descent?
What you dislike is seeing white people analyzed, broken down and clarified just as easily as black people, asians, and others. You are not above critical analysis, despite the fact that you will, without hesitation, analyze and draw conclusions of other races of people regardless if your conclusions are inconsistent and flat out wrong. Still you will do everything in your power to uphold them. This use of rhetoric on your part is only one phase of a broader campaign here in Wikipedia to unilaterally control the way the content is presented. Once Wikipedia is "right winged" then it becomes nothing more than a tool to maintain the status quo, Whites on top dictating the content, blacks and others having little or no say. Your cry of reverse-racism, or Afrocentrism, or white-liberalism, is nothing more than a smoke screen.
Although I agree that race is nothing more than the identification of people in groups based on their appearance, I disagree that you can rely on their appearances (especially from a statue) to deterime which 'race' they fall in. After all, it's absurd to me to take a person from East India, or Ethiopia, and categorize them as a "Caucasoid" despite the fact they resemble in no way an Irish-man. So what happens then is that right-wing ideologues, in their quest to preserve the white identity from eventual assimilation into the world, recategorize "white" to include people who have historically been outside of white identity. To be "Caucasoid" is to be somehow a part of a more sophisticated form of humanity.
The reason why this article was recently updated was because it had to be consistent with the corresponding article on Black People. -- 208.254.174.148 07:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
==LOL! I happen to be of Greek heritage, and while I now live in New Jersey, I am well aware of the large Greek and Cypriot population in Astoria Queens. Your suggestion that Greeks look 'bi-racial' and do not view themselves as White is absolute nonsense. This claim would be absurd anywhere, but it is particularly absurd in the context of NYC, where the vast majority of whites are of the swarthy Med type (Italians, Jews etc.) You sound like a self hating black guy, trying to feel better about being black by suggesting that dark whites are really light blacks. Pathetic but funny. And as far as Greeks in general not resembling Irishmen, I made this very point myself in my initial comments when I said race describes those characteristics that canbe captured by statue - you can usually tell a Greek from an Irishman in the flesh but most layman would never be able to distinguish an ancient Irish statue from an ancient Greek statue. It's worth pointing out however, that there are Irish who could readily pass for Greek and Greeks who could pass for Irish. The swarthy Irish actor Colin Farrel of course recently played Alexander the Great (imagine how a Greek audience would react to a 'bi-racial actor in that role? LOL!), and famous Greek-Americans such as Bob Costas and John Stamos could easily pass for Irish. Take pride in your own heritage- stop envying the cultures of others -it's obvious and pathetic. By the way, there are plenty of readily recognizable lily white Arab-Americans as well, such as the prototypical 'white frat boy' QB Doug Flutie, arch neo-con John Sununu and icon of the 1950's nulcear family TV hour, Danny Thomas (not to mention his daughter, Marlo Thomas). Speaking of icons of lily-white 1950's nulcear family TV, nobody ever regarded Desi and Lucy as an interracial couple.
Excuse me, I know that you are wrong. I spent some time in Queens doing some research on my family tree and I met a few Greeks-Americans that run a catering service and they do NOT view themselves as WHITE.
-- LOL. You spent 'some time' in Queens? I AM a Greek-American and I was BORN in Astoria. I have spent half my life there. Your suggestion that Greeks don't identify as White is insane. Morever, one does not need to be pale to be 'white' - most Greeks and other Meds are relatively swarthy (ie. they have dark eyes, hair, tan well etc.). This does not mean they aren't white. In fact, in NYC, most whites are either Meds or Jews and tend to have relatively dark complexions (as whites go). They are still unambiguously white. 'White' is just a euphemism for Caucasian- it doesn't require one to be pale or Nordic in appearance. By your twisted logic, Richard Nixon's first vice president (the Swarthy Greek-American Spiro Agnew) was 'non-white' (imagine?), and Jackie Onassis's marriage to Greek shipping Tycoon Aristotle Onassis after JKF died was 'interracial' (who knew?). Give it up dude - you're making an ASS of yourself. By the way, thanks for admitting Telly Savalas never looked white to you - this places all of your other coments into their proper perspective;)
I do not imagine that during the last century Greek people were not white. There are many ethnic groups that were not considered white back then. Imagine being arab, from Egypt living in the US in 1902, or a Sicilian, or a Yemeni. They were not White....
... What you are trying to do is not argue with "my" logic, but argue instead with the logic of white people over the past century. Judges, congressmen, scientists, etc. Your greek background may be on one side of the arguement, but I have met other greeks who do not identify as white, and you can call it insane or not. You think a "swarthy" complexioned Greek is more "white" than a "lightskinned" African, because what, their skull is shaped slightly differently? I don't say these Greeks are black, I say merely they are not white. Your definition of whiteness is centered around skulls and regional location. Skin color is not a factor. So you and I are having two different conversations. I showed you examples below, and I fail to see how those people, being "swarthy" are white by virtue of living in Europe and having a Caucasoid skull. And you know what? that whole skull shape nonsense is where the racial argument leads to myths about intelligence and IQ testing. I'm starting to see the link here, and why Caucasoids have been associated outside of Europe with "being slightly more bright" than non-caucasoids in Africa and across Asia. Why is "race and intelligence" still a part of the links in this article anyway? We will clear this up sooner or later. I'll be gone for a while, have fun without me.--
Zaphnathpaaneah
05:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
They are very familiar actually with the whole racial game of trying to place them inside a white identity, and they seem to be unable to relate to it. I met a doctor, who looks very pale, (Irish) and he does not consider himself white, a computer analyst, in fact, just about every Greek i DO know, making it plainly clear, they do not consider themselves WHITE.
They view their background as something other than white and they do not feel a part of white identity. They told me about ...
... growing up were treated differently, not as white.
Unless they are doing what everyone else is doing, that is going after $$$ and fame. And with that in mind, you aren't going to find the everyday Greek or a famous Greek portrayed on the screen by anything other than either a "white" or a "white looking" greek. Nowadays Greeks of darker complexion are not goin to be on TV other than as provincal stereotypes (the Balki typecast). TV in general is not a good reliable non-biased representation of people of color. Usually they are made up, hair colored, and reimaged to de-ethnicitize. So if we find some older pictures of greeks and local pics.... oh lets say like these:
http://www.symidream.com/NG/People%202/images/Greek%20boy2_jpg.jpg I know a bi-racial child that is identical in appearance to this picture. He does not look Irish, nor German.
Telly Savalas has never looked white to me. In fact, he http://www.mountaintimes.com/mtweekly/2005/0630/muegel_PeopleGreekIconPainter.gif - another. http://www.mustrad.org.uk/graphics/bellou.jpg http://www.dam.brown.edu/people/yiannis/IMAGES/StelKaz.jpg
Oh but let me guess, the only "real" greeks are the ones with the "doric" phenotype right?
I understand there are greeks out there that blend in, that's to be expected, you can find anybody that has round eyes and fair skin trying to pass for white (regardless of their background). That does not close the issue, and it certainly does not give you license to drop all people of a particular nationality into a category. I know my history, and Greek people were not white in the states at the turn of the century. -- 208.254.174.148 03:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
You're not very perceptive - which part of LAYMEN don't you undertand? This is not about art or history or even about sculpture for that matter, save but for the fact that 'race' describes essentially those aspects of appearance that can be captured in statue. This belies the claim of 'Whiteness studies' types that race is somehow an entirely 'arbitrary' and 'fluid' 'construct' with no anchor in objective reality. What I have said about race being essentially such features as can be captured by statue is a readily observable fact that will resonate with anyone reading this, which rather nicely cuts through the BS and subterfuge of so much of the nonsense and revisionism posted here. No opinionated posts at 'Talk: Tutankkamon' (lol - nothing is more of a magnet for anthropological revisionists than topics involving Egypt) will change the fact that, for instance, the Statue of Liberty is readily recognizable as a Caucasian woman and NOT someone from the far east or Subsaharan Africa, and she could be just as easily imagined Greek as Irish.
You guys can't even decide what "race" is.
You lie. From the beginning, I have maintained that Race describes those aspects of appearance that are captured by statue - a statue's race is usually obvious while the specific ethnicity is not.
Come on guys, define it. Is it the shape of the skull, the hue of the skin, the region your ancestors lived in? You can't figure out where the "dark skinned whites" end and the "lightskinned blacks" begin.
It has less to do with the hue of the skin or the region one's ancestors lived in than the shape of the skull, though the domain of the white race is essentially all of Europe, plus North Africa, the Near East and South Asia. Dark skinned whites end rather abrubtly below North Africa. If there is a 'border region' where the people (while definitely black) have both Negroid and Caucasoid features, that would be perhaps the horn of Africa (ie. Ethopia, Somalia).
You have these half-african people that are classified as Caucasoid whites in history, and even pass for white today, but only 30 years ago they were undeniably black.
Nonsense - name one such group. This is the essence of the dishonesty of Whiteness studies, which argues that those included under the banner of 'white' has been more exclusive in the past. In fact, the increasingly common perception of relatively dark whites (ie. 'Hispanics', Arabs - to a much lesser extent Southern Europeans) as something other than 'white' is a very recent phenomenon, stemming largely from the recent tendency in American media to sloppily lump together Latin Americans of mixed race with pure Spaniards as a single racial group ('Hispanics' or 'Latinos'). In actual fact, in America, 'Hispanic' is not a racial but linguistic category, and the U.S. census clearly states that Hispanics can be of any race. Spanish "Hispanics' are and have always been classified as 'white'. As I pointed out before, the 1950's are often imagined as the peak of lilly white intolerance in America, and the popular TV show of this period "Ozzy and Harriet" is often used as a metaphor for this period. How telling it is then that in fact, far more popular than "Ozzie and Harriet" was "I Love Lucy", starring Cuban Desi Arnaz and red headead wife Lucy, and "Make Room For Daddy", starring openly Lebanese Danny Thomas. NOBODY regarded Desi or Danny as 'non-white' at the time, or their on screen (and off screen) marriages as 'interracial', nor could either show be remotely construed as 'controversial' or pushing ethnic envelopes or the boundaries of American tolerance. Who can deny that these same shows, had they aired today (in the modern era of PC, revisionist anthropology), would be described as 'controversial' shows featuring 'interracial' marriages testing the boundaries of American tolerance. The PC, 'Whiteness studies' left is engaging in pure Orwellian revisionism in an attempt to Balkanize America.
Lets wait another 30 years and lets see how the "race is real" experts try to mix it up for the next generation. -- 208.254.174.148 03:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Paul, even this distorted perspective of "Lady Liberty's" face you posted (it's so warped her sex is ambiguous- yet her race is still obvious - more proof of my point!) is still clearly Caucasian. That you should find it racially ambiguous is revealing, and undermines the credibility of all of your preceding comments regarding race, placing them in their proper context. I'm glad you posted the pic - it will reinforce my point to most viewers/readers that the idea of race describes those features that are captured by sculpture. Even in your warped angle pic, this is clearly a Caucasian face, not a southeast Asian or Subsaharan African. That this white icon is inspired by Greek sculpture is a delicious fact I was unaware of - thank you for further proving my point! The obviously white woman depicted by the statue of Liberty is based upon Greek sculptures - I'll have to remember that - thanks Paul!
However, I must say that your latter comment about the racial designation of persons of mixed race being arbitrary is quite reasonable. In fact, I also agree that the idea of race can be needlessly devisive - I prefer to focus on what people have in common rather than what separates them. But this is quite different than suggesting that there is no such thing as a white or caucasian race, or that Greeks are racially ambiguous, or that the idea of 'white' has historically been limited to Nordics, all of which is sheer revisionist nonsense. In closing, I ask all to take note of the shameless hypocrisy of how the same folks who argue that racial differences are either exagerated or insignificant or nonexistent nevertheless DEMAND that we acknowledge significant differences between Southern and Northern Europeans.
People are talking past each other on this article. I believe there is a place for two articles: 1) content that includes the whiteness studies concepts and 2) another that isn't negative and summarizes White people in an article that covers Etymology, Culture, Population, Languages, History, Countries, Famous Whites and accomplishments (and failures). I'd suggest the White people article be based on the same format used for other entho-religious groupings, (see a model format at Jew).
A basis for the article should be uncontroversial and what is generally accepted globally: "A common element to the various definitions of "White" today, is that the term refers to a person of European descent. Also generally associated with white people are European culture, Christianity (whether as a religion or part of their cultural heritage) and Western Civilization." Now, OF COURSE there are exceptions, but they should not come to rule the content of the article at the expense of providing general, encyclopedic and useful information to readers about White people-- past, present and future. We do exist. Icemountain 19:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem with finding the format is that the other ethno-religious groups do not fit the same premises. Jews are a religious group, with a clear distinction. Arabs and HIspanic are a linguistic groups. Black people fit two groupings. White people seem to fit a social order, and not a ethno-religious group. Because many of the ethno-religious groups can contain white people, and many white people can be a part of these groups. Christianity is certainly NOT a part of what makes a white person white. There is no place in the world where a non Christian, fitting the other descriptions would be considered NOT white. No way an Irish Muslim, or a German Hindu, or a Swedish buddhist will be considered "non" white. I have never ever ever heard of a European fitting all of the other agreed descriptions, being 'excluded' from being white for lack of being non-christian. I have never ever ever or heard of a middle easterner from Lebanon, or Chaldean, or Coptic Christian, be socially accepted as "white" because they are Christian, only if their features fit within an "acceptable zone" of whiteness regardless of religion, would they be "white" or not. I contest the Christian aspect and do not feel it should be included. Christianity in fact has become more synonymous with Latinos, and Ethiopians now than with whiteness. I honestly think that those who wish to maintain some endogamous link with whiteness and Christianity are doing so out of a political agenda, and not an objective methodology.
People think that Black and White people are both polar opposites or have identical descriptors. If white people are known to like chocolate, then someone will want to talk about how black people "logically" should like vanilla (or dislike chocolate), or at the very least they will want to put ice cream into the black people article. A silly example, but the point is many people want to describe Black people also as a "social order" in a way, but it is not. Black people are an ethnic group. White people are a social order, and is purely based on skin color and facial phenotype. I could really be from anywhere in the world, and be white if I have light to pale skin, and if my eyes are round, and if I show no obvious features that identify my ancestry coming from Africa, Aboriginal Australia, or the Far East (all groups that fit within a Eurocentric social order). In many countries, like Brazil, Whiteness is purely a social-economic identity. Now the U.S. Census is trying to use a strictly regional parental descriptor to designate who is white. My mother could look like Shaka Zulu's sister, but if her family was born in Egypt, she would be "white", and thus so would I, "legally". See "Mostafa Hefny". It seems to me that a lot of white people want their group to BE a "ethnicity" because either they feel its unfair, or the lack of an ethnicity puts their identity in a bad light. But thats how their social group was designed, over time, it included and excluded ethnic groups based on social and political sensibilities. There is no religious, ethnic, historical, anthropological or logical context to it. Currently in this generation, it seems to be now just based on an exclusive "look" and less a regional proximity to Europe (along with the look)... oh and a don't ask don't tell policy regarding non-European heritage (the importance of this varies). -- 68.60.55.162 20:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC) Zaph
I suppose, but if they unilaterally update the article, then they will activate me, and upon activation, I exhibit chaotic, scathing, unrepentant etiquette free run on sentances that ultimately polarize the discourse while simultaneously annhiliate the offender's position. -- 68.60.55.162 22:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
An interesting statistic has emerged. 60% of whites are Christian, another 40% are Muslim, thanks to the U.S. census. Half a billion Muslims live in Europe North Africa and Middle East (white areas). Sooner or later, there will be more white Muslims than white Christians. Now guys, what were we talking about? --
68.60.55.162
21:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
--Frankly, considering that most Europeans are agnostic, and most Muslims are white (yes, the indigenous population of North Africa and the Middle East is and has always been caucasian- certainly not Negroid or Mongolid), I suspect that there are already more white Muslims than white Christians and this has probably been the case for quite some time.
You have a long way from assuming that the Middle East and Egypt is and always has been caucasian. http://www.saudi-american-forum.org/images/Newsletters/Supp20030430b.jpg - Saudi Prince http://www.nku.edu/~waltersd/images/yemen%20photo%20album/pages/girls.htm - http://www.peterlanger.com/People/Africans/pages/EGASW010.htm - Egypt (as if i need to be posting Egyptian examples) http://www.courses.psu.edu/art_h/art_h111_bac18/head.jpg - Giza 2250 BC I'm not going to go through this same argument. You need to catch up with the times. Egyptians and Arabs have not always been caucasoid. The Caucasoid presence in Egypt has steadily INcreased (not decreased) over time. -- 208.254.174.148 04:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Gee, that post warning about anthropological revisionist politics sure struck a nerve, didn't it? The raving protests that followed it have done nothing but prove the point - which I find delicious. Keep it up;)
See what happens when my commitment to REAL neutrality is addressed. White people is a disupted page, finally. The bias on here finally could be viewed when you take all the "variables" out and compare constants. I'm still not going to interfere for the time being, I want to see how you wonderful people resolve this conflict. -- 208.254.174.148 02:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Someone (above) wrote, "Black people are an ethnic group. White people are a social order, and is purely based on skin color and facial phenotype," thereby implying that "White" is not an ethnicity.
It may be of interest that, when asked to identify their “ethnic heritage” on the census long form, fewer than one percent of Americans claim to be “White.” The most popular choices of ethnicity are: German (23.3%), Irish (15.6%), English (13.1%), African-American (10.0%), and Italian (5.9%). In other words speaking mathematically, self-assessed “Blacks” are among the four largest “majorities” in America (pluralities, actually) and the term “White” is insignificantly buried just below Puerto Ricans and Slovaks (0.7%) and just above Danes and Hungarians (0.6%). (This factoid is available from the Census Bureau website or in any Almanac. My own desktop reference is Borgna Brunner, ed. Time Almanac: The Ultimate Worldwide Fact and Information Source (Boston, 1999) 364.)
The same person (above) wrote, "the point is many people want to describe Black people also as a "social order" in a way, but it is not. Black people are an ethnic group." This explicitly claims that "Black" (in contrast to "White") is an ethnicity. Nothing could be further from the truth. The claim is worse than false; it is unintelligible. The inaccuracy lies in the word "Black." If the poster meant his use of the term to denote "African American" then the claim is accurate. The African-American ethnic community has a long and well-documented history from its origins in the 1750-1830 northeast, through its full expression in the Jacksonian era, to its Reconstruction-era assimilation of traditions of the freedmen and Creole elite of the lower South.
But given that the poster avoided the term "African American," his wording clearly implies that all members of the African Diaspora throughout the globe, plus all people around the world who "look black" to him (even those without African ancestry), plus all the people around the world whom he thinks self-identify as "black" in some local socio-political squabble, that all of these are members of some vast global multilingual, multicultural, multireligious umbrella ethnicity. This is arrant Eurocentrism/Afrocentrism without a shred of falsifiable evidence. -- Frank W Sweet 13:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
In a revision as of 21:45, 27 December 2005, contributor "88.111.78.218" removed Keanu Reeves as an example of an American seen by most as White, despite having a part-Chinese father. Why was this example removed? -- Frank W Sweet 22:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Not having received an answer, I restored the reference. -- Frank W Sweet 11:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Probably because he doesn't have too many fature that is consider as "Asian" by the American????????
If we are going to question whether Gloria Reubens is African-American or Jamaican-Canadian, then it would seem the racial issue is whether her ancestry is African or Jamaican, while the question of -American versus -Canadian is one of nationality. From her photo, she appears to be a mix of white and black, but calling her African-American is a different issue from caller her Black. 1 January 2006 1:12 am (PST)