Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:34, 16 January 2007

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Middle east , arabs, jews etc.

Some people here have been insisting that Middle Easterners, Arabs, Jews etc are not white people. I do not have to say and repeat what kind of ideology is linked to that kind of position:

1. US census says they are white.

2. Traditional anthropologists say they are white.

Look at the following links by important traditional anthroplogists:

http://dienekes.angeltowns.net/texts/coonmed/

http://dienekes.angeltowns.net/texts/hootonmed/

I have cut and pasted this part from Hooton:

The Mediterranean Subrace. Probably the name, Mediterranean, is as good as any for a designation of the great subrace of basic, long-headed brunets that constitutes the largest number of Whites

....The definition of this type, based upon very extensive anthropometric surveys of Iran and Iraq, seems to me the most important addition to the knowledge of the contemporary White race that has been made in the last few decades

...There is not much doubt that the eastward extension of straight-nosed Mediterraneans of the Classic type provided the White basis of the early populations in southeastern Asia and Indonesia. They probably were the main carriers of the Aryan language into India at a much later date.

...Negro Africa abounds in mulatto peoples of ancient origin and often of considerable homogeneity. Most of these are tall and slender, and from their tendency to aquiline noses seem to have acquired their White blood from the Arab or Semitic type of the Mediterranean subrace.

And this from Coon:

Our area, from Morocco to Afghanistan, is the homeland and cradle of the Mediterranean race. Mediterraneans are found also in Spain, Portugal, most of Italy, Greece and the Mediterranean islands, and in all these places, as in the Middle East, they form the major genetic element in the local populations. In a dark-skinned and finer-boned form they are also found as the major population element in Pakistan and northern India.

The Sumerians were Mediterraneans skeletally. So were the ancient Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Children of Israel, and the Arabs of the early Islamic period whose skeletons I had the privilege of measuring at Nippur. A Mediterranean is a white man etc.

See also what coon says about civilization (this is obviously addressed to those Nordicists who are always trying to imply that a "Nordic Race" is responsilbe for Western civilization or even Civilization):

The Mediterraneans occupy the center of the stage; their areas of greatest concentration are precisely those where civilization is the oldest. This is to be expected, since it was they who produced it and it, in a sense, that produced them.

Of course we all know that traditional anthropology is out of favour and often in contradiction with modern population genetics, and that the concept of a discrete Mediterranean sub-race no longer holds water. But the concept of a discrete "white" race or "European race" is also in contradiction with population genetics and we are writing an article here about white people as a racial classification.

I have often said what a bad article this is, based on very strange opinions, often those left over by extremist movements like Nazi-Nordicism. It is incredible that in a Wiki article those are the norms being followed.

I will not make any changes myself. I have tried too many times, to be reverted by "some" people. I will just leave this here as additional proof of the quality of this article and the big agenda that it hides.

Veritas et Severitas 05:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

.....Yes, but this page is about he usage of `white'! If Osama Bin Laden (a supposed `Mediterranean' from the Arabian Peninsular) was being described as a criminal suspect, how many people in society would describe him as a "White male in his late 40's"? The issues about Mediterraneans raised (including their form found in India, - people who are almost never seen as white in the UK, regardless of how fair they are) make us revert back to the `who is white?' debate which has been going on for years in the past 6-7 archives of discussion!

Except for few of those who could "pass", mid easterners would be considered brown or black here. Include US census definitions in USA section since they are not the worldwide norm. To quote Margrave, we wont be dictated by the new world...LMAO...

DARK SKINNED??

My Oxford dictionary idenifies Mediterraneanms as being dark skinned anyway! why are they classed as `white'?? why aren't Japanese classed as white because they are white skinned?

There are Japanese people with brown or tan skin too - so want call them White as well? Their skin aren't as pale pinkish White like the Scandinavians. Anyway, their facial structure isn't anything like White people: they don't have high-bridged noses and much of longish face like those of the Caucasoid/White race, what more to say about their eyes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.15.122.35 (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Just see the above comments.

Wow, full of quality and insight. Veritas et Severitas 15:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you seem to be British. Well perhaps you should know that there are people out there, and very important people, that say that you, the British, are mainly of South Western European (Read Mediterranean) origins. So, if Mediterraneans are not white, and white is supposed to be a race, why are Britons supposed to be "White"?.

Read two recently published books by leading population geneticists:

1. Blood of the Isles, by Bryan Sykes.

2. The Origins of the British, by Stephen Oppenheimer.

Here you have some quotations from the books. Conclusion: Britons are mainly of South Western European Origins, that is of Iberian origins (If you do not know what that is, well of Spanish origins). In my style, I introduce science, but I am getting bored of the street approach of contributors here:

As far as Blood of the Isles is concerned here you have some citations:

The maps and the data in the Scotland paper( See: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1393742006) have been taken from pages 290 and 292 in the book.

The book is full of interesting stuff. Just some relevant issues:

Page 280.

...the presence of large numbers of Jasmines’s Oceanic clan, says to me that there was a very large-scale movement along the Atlantic see board north from Iberia, beginning as far back as the early Neolithic and perhaps even before that. The number of exact and close matches between the maternal clans of western and northern Iberia and the western half of the Isles is very impressive, much more so than the much poorer matches with continental Europe.

Note: In this case he is not talking of the famous R1b. He is talking of other genetic markers.

Pages 281-82.

The genetic evidence shows that a large proportion of Irish Celts, on both the male and female side, did arrive from Iberia at or the same time as farming reached the Isles.

The connection to Spain is also there in the myth of Brutus………. This too may be the faint echo of the same origin myth as the Milesian Irish and the connection to Iberia is almost as strong in the British regions as it is in Ireland.

Picts….. They are from the same mixture of Iberian and Euroepean Mesolithic ancestry that forms the Pictish/Celtic substructure of the Isles.

Note: The European Mesolithic is also believed to have originated in Iberia. Sykes thinks that most Britons come from Neolithic migrations. Oppenheimer from Mesolithic ones. Both originating in Iberia.

Page 283.

Here again, the strongest signal is a Celtic one, in the form of the clan of Oisin, which dominates the scene all over the Isles. The predominance in every part of the Isles of the Atlantic chromosome (the most frequent in the Oisin clan), with its strong affinities to Iberia, along with other matches and the evidence from the maternal side convinces me that it is from this direction that we must look for the origin of Oisin and the great majority of our Y-chromosomes. The sea routes of the atlantic fringe conveyed both men and women to the Isles.

Note: I think it is clear that Sykes is talking of:

1. Subgroups of R1b. (Atlantic modal haplotype and other subgroups)

2. Maternal DNA.

3. Other matches.

Oppenheimer is more specific about those other matches. He claims that also the E3b and J lineages arrived in Britain from Iberia and also some I lineages (subgroups) that are present mainly in Iberia, etc.

And for the one hundredth time. Apart form using previous published material, Sykes has used his own samples: More than 10.000 samples from all over the British Isles never published before: A ten-year long job. No other genetic study either in the British Isles or in any other country has been so extensive yet.

As far as The Origins of the British, by Oppenheimer is concerned.

1. Huge book: 534 pages. Impossible to go in detail here. I would advise it before Blood of the Isles, because it goes into much more detail.

2. Main ideas.

Celts: He elaborates a lot on this using history, linguistics and, the big new approach, genetics.

Pages: Especially 19-91.

His conclusion: British Celts and British Celtic languages do not come from Central Europe. They come from Spain.

3. British population in general:

They are mainly of South-Western European origin. Exactly of Iberian origins (Spanish origins).

He gives ample genetic evidence, along with historical and archaeological data. The genetic evidence is about different genetic markers, including maternal and paternal DNA.

An exact quotation:

Page 375.

By far the majority of male gene types in the British Isles derive from Iberia, ranging from a low of 59% in Fakenham, Norfolk to highs of 96% in Llangefni, north Wales and 93% Castlerea, Ireland. On average only 30% of gene types in England derive from north-west Europe. Even without dating the earlier waves of north-west European immigration, this invalidates the Anglo-Saxon wipeout theory.

In short, all these new books using genetics in conjunction with historical accounts, archaeology and linguistics, are much more important than most people here seem to think. They will inevitably have a huge impact (they are having it already) about the views on the origins and roots of all British people and according to some people here about their "whiteness".

Both authors are from the University of Oxford and both books have just been published. Veritas et Severitas 03:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Black Irish and Scandinavians with black hair

How about the Black Irish and indigenous Scandinavians with natural black hair? Are they considered Whites too? --203.15.122.35 05:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Why were the above comments by Veritas included in the section on the usage of the term `white' in Australia?? The Australian section now looks like a complete muddle! I am from Australia not Britain as Veritas surmised and like I have stated, `white' is not used in the census as an indicator of ethnicity. Regions of Europe are. This is due to the fact that `white' is an opinion based subject, not one based on scientific fact. By the way, I do not deny the British peoples Iberian DNA, but bare in mind that much of Iberian immigration to the British isles pre-dated Moorish occupation as well as African slave importation as well. If the average Australian wishes to use the term `white' to identify what the word literally means, then so be it! It is not a scientific measure anyway. Southern Europeans in Australia would also be considered white if that's what they `looked' like in appearance! Nowadays, the term `Anglo' is becomeing more popular to distinguish Nordics from Meds. Globally most people would use the word `white' to identify an appearance rather than a person's DNA (which is not cosmetically noticible - lol) or their heritage. Be honest, many Mediterraneans do have an appearance distinctively different to Nordics, so if the appearance differs, then why shouldn't the perception?.

Then call yourself whatever your prefer, but not white, especially when the sentences that follow say that those hypothetical "whites" are responsible for European and Western civilization. You think we were born yesterday?. By the way, are you really "white"? I have not seen a real white person in my life. Real white, my friend, like the colour of a white piece of paper?. Come on, I know that the people addressed by that kind of rationale are not very sophisticated, but do not come with fairy tales to me. Veritas et Severitas 02:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is too racist

It should be made by an anthropologist. Only a person with very nazi and nordicism ideas would have made this article. Why make too long parts about blond and red hair and light eye color. Most of white people have brown eyes and mid-brown to dark brown hair.This article is meaning that if I have brown eyes and dark hair I´m not white. It´s stupid. Hitler, the Nazi leader had black hair, wasn´t he white???? And there are many blond and light eyed people in Southern Europe, for example see a picture of the Spanish Royal Family. It´s ok to put pictures of that red haired and blonde girls, but also put pictures of white people with all kind of features not only the light haired and light eyed.Lithop 03:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

But they do not like anthropologists, either traditional ones or genetic anthropologists. They just want to use the article for their propaganda. They prefer the definitions that you can find in highly respected academic circles like Stormfront. This article is dominated from the beginning by Nordicist ideas of people (many of them (not all)from the so-called Anglo-Saxon world) who have been brought up with so much ignorance that some comments are risible. Others just have a clear agenda.

By the way, did you notice again how user Lukas erased the references to Arabs and Jews, although they are clearly cited above by traditional anthropologists?

As to genetics, they like to post those parts that they like and erase those that they do not like. Just follow them. Some users are particularly worried about "losing" the British in their Nordicist fantasies. What else would they have left! Veritas et Severitas 01:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point Lithop. We need to show white people with dark hair like Hitler. Everybody considers Hitler to be white, so he may be the best candidate to show a dark-haired white person. From my experience, the Spanish royal family would not be a good candidate. I have met many people of pure Spanish descent who claim they are not white, but instead "Hispanic". A Spanish-descent person's picture should not be used in the introduction because they are debatabley white. They would fit better in a gallery of marginal whites.--Tea 04:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that we show Adolf Hitler, rightly the most reviled White person in history, as somehow "representative" of white people with black hair, then this makes about as much sense as your previous post where you suggest that people from stormfront editing here would produce a "top quality" article (this is contingent on the fact that any of them have the ability to use more than monosyllables when they speak, which I doubt). Get a grip, and get some perspective, we're making an encyclopaedia here, not a propoganda pamphlet for the National Socialist Party. Why not use Spanish people? Just because some Hispanics in North America may not identify as White according to you, no one would deny that Spanish people (who are not Hispanics in the North American sense, obviously) are White people, at least not here in Europe. There are plenty of examples of people with Black hair all over Europe, even in Scandinavia, look at the "Blondness" map, there are plenty of people in north Europe without "light coloured" hair (whatever that is, presumably "light coloured hair" does not mean blond, so even this category may cover a certain degree of brown hair colour). I live in Finland and I can see no real evidence of light hair colour being particularly prominent here, I know quite a lot of Finns with very dark hair colour. Let's face it, we are not talking about people in one place all being "blond" and people in another place all being "dark", there's not boundary, even if racialists would like to decieve us by trying to pretend that there are boundaries between their "races". So why not have a picture of a dark haired Swede or Norwegian and a light haired Spaniard or Italian? Just to dispell some of the myths that seem to have pervaded this article. Alun 06:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the Prime Minister of Norway Jens Stoltenberg, hardly what one might call blonde is he? So why not use him as an example? Alun 07:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Where I live, there is a great politicization of race for Hispanics. Hispanics are often talked about as a singular group for the purposes of affirmative action, elections and border issues. I think people's perception is someone is uncovered as a "Hispanic" when they open their mouths and start speaking fluent Spanish instead of English. Other times, a Spanish surname is the primary indicator that someone is a "Hispanic". I didn't object to a picture of a Spaniard "Hispanic" being in the introduction based on coloration. I objected because they form a legal entity which is often considered apart from white people in the US. In the UK, there is no legal distinction, so Alun may be unfamiliar with my line of thought.--Tea 23:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Where I live, there is a great politicization of race for Hispanics.

This is irrelevant, this article is not actually about where you live. Alun 22:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hispanics are often talked about as a singular group for the purposes of affirmative action, elections and border issues.

OK, so presumably this is again a parochial rather than encyclopaedic usage. Alun 22:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think people's perception is someone is uncovered as a "Hispanic" when they open their mouths and start speaking fluent Spanish instead of English.

How is this relevant to being a White person? Are Germans from Germany not considered White because they do not speak fluent English? Alun 22:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Other times, a Spanish surname is the primary indicator that someone is a "Hispanic".

I don't think you'll find this is true in Spain. Alun 22:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't object to a picture of a Spaniard "Hispanic" being in the introduction based on coloration.

Good. Alun 22:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• I objected because they form a legal entity which is often considered apart from white people in the US.

Really? Well there is no legal entity in the entirety of Europe that makes anybody White, so given the fact that in the USA a person of European descent can be legally considered not-white, presumably no Europeans can legally be considered "White" in the US. After all, when it comes to descisions like this, we all know that US courts are the de jure reliable sources, and not scientific disciplines such as anthropology, biology, archaeology and genetics, that is academic disciplines that might actually provide a considered academic point of view. Let's face it, if you have to introduce US litigation into this then your actual argument is irrelevant. This is not about what some US citizens, or some US courts think might be a possible legal definition of Hispanic or White. This is about how the term White people is generally percieved globally. This is an encyclopaedia, it is not a repositary of the racial myths that happen to be held by US courts, it is not a pot pouri of disproved quasi-scientific ideas. So what do most people think? Who knows? But it's got bugger all to do with what US courts may or may not think vis a vis afirmative action. Alun 22:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That picture is perfectly representative. I do not include it because I do not know yet how to do it. And Pavarotti, leaving also the pictures that are there now too. So, the picture section would be less biased. Veritas et Severitas 19:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As to Dark t. and other users what can we say? I have said more than once that some (only some I want to leave this clear) Americans, Australians, etc.. think themselves whiter and more European than the Europeans themselves. It may be just because they live in countries that have an intensive history of bigotry and they cannot swallow easily that they are increasingly becoming non-White nations (in my opinion much more interesting for that, but they obviously see it differently). Just travel to any US city. The country is no more "white" than some South American countries, and I could bet my right hand that Uruguay and Argentina are right now "whiter" than the US by all means. It does not matter what their statistics say or how their media want to present them on TV or in the movies. Anyone who knows the country well knows it. Their position is probably one way to steam off the growing inferiority complex of some radical "whites"(because of their view on white and non-white peoples and nations). It must piss them off that some South American or even Muslim countries like Turkey are by all means whiter than their countries and nations. It is sad. They may deserve some understanding. A shoulder to cry on. So they come here with their risible arguments: But these are considered white and those not by my uncle! It sounds like a desperate cry to claim their "whiteness" or their "Europeanness" or God knows what. Anyway, in the case of the Americans, I would go around more cautiously. Some of them seem to ignore to which extent anti-Americanism has often a racist tinge and it does not only come from Arab countries. Have just a look at this fascist site and how Anglo-Americans are portrayed below the Hitler pictures. See:

http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2007/01/

If you cannot open it, I have cut and posted this part:

U.S. is definitely Judeo-Saxon in every sense: culturally, socially, and morally. The old-money W.A.S.P.s and Ashkenazi Jews are also increasingly intermarrying one another, so within a few generations, distinctions may be further blurred than at present.

As the great German intellectual Werner Sombart said: “Americanism is to a great extent distilled Judaism.”

Should we use these spurious and radical views now to claim that Anglo-Americans are not white, because as some people have been insisting here (some Americans, by the way), Jews are not white? Veritas et Severitas 20:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As I recall in the USA the Jews were not considered white. From what I studied white in america ment Anglo-Saxon backgroup, British people also. Last I remember the British and americans(USA)always had their own definition for who was "white". Everyone knows americans dream about being British, they have always looked up to their english speaking friends. I know for a fact that every article about race/ethnic groups americans write seems to be very racists. --Margrave1206 02:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and how about the indigenous Scandinavians and Celtic people that have black hair? They're not White too? Perhaps it is true that some of the users of this article are basing their facts on Nazism and Nordicism ideas of the White race. --203.15.122.35 02:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Important info to add

Heres a race map made by an american anthropligist made in 1899. The most interesting and relevant thing is that he shows that people living in certain areas of the british isles are of medditeranean appearance. Im sure most people will be unaware of this so i think it has relevance to the article. It also shows germany is not entirely nordic which is contrary to the stereotype .

race map http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Passing_of_the_Great_Race_-_Map_4.jpg race article http://en.wikipedia.org/Mediterranean_race

--Globe01 19:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge genetic history to "Genetic history of Europe"

So, I'm proposing a merge of the genetic information off this page. Why?

• It's lengthy, specialized and not central to most people's understanding of "white people" - Unlike even the appearance information, haplogroup membership is irrelevant in nearly all settings to the categorization of whether people are or are not white.
• The haplogroup info perpetuates a category error - It imagines that "white people" forms a genetic category that is clearly inherited along with genes when it isn't (consider Colored people, African Americans etc. for noninheritance), and biological coherence attaches to the category (consider Mexican descendants of Spaniards whose status a white people changes when they enter the United States or Canada). In other words, haplogroup members aren't all white people.
• Putting it a little stronger, one main purpose of the term white people, in say the United States or England, is to differentiate people from non-white people who may even be their own children (with a nonwhite partner).
• Haplogroup info could theoretically be part of any social group page, but the reasons for including it are weak, especially if the category is much more recent or very different in scale than the relevant migrations (so Europe is a reasonable category, but Czechoslovakia or Naples almost certainly not). Since haplogroups are primarily used to study genetic and migratory history, it would be more relevant to reproduce the relevant historical information in the actual article and defer genetic details to an article about genetics.

I see two reasonable alternatives for the merger:

• The genetic section could be eliminated. - This would most clearly reflect the category error concern above, but would eliminate interesting information, and is unlikely to produce consensus among editors.
• The opening paragaphs could stay and change and a quick genetic/migratory history summary added with reference to Genetic history of Europe.

--Carwil 02:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree. The genetic section does not perpetuate anything. Haplogroups just show how Europeans and other "whites" share lineages with Asians, Africans, etc. Ancestry has always been important in the concept of race. Genetics show a very different story from the one that has been assumed for a very long time. Lineage has always been a fundamental concept to races and to being white or whatever. Lineages are scientifically proven by Haplogroups. In any case the Mitocondrial DNA should be extended. Right now it is misleading. Mitocondrial DNA shows even better how Europeans are related to other peoples. It is one of the most important parts of the article. This is not about creating a fallacy about the white race. It is about analysing whether a social concept has solid scientific value. Genetics shows that the "white" race or any other is very different in fact from what it was assumed and from what many people still want other people to believe. And please, just a reminder, this is not about White American people, or about White people according to the Americans. For that there is the article White American.

Again, American bias is one of the most serious problems of Wiki. One example again is the question of the white Mexican. A "white" Mexican is a "white" Mexican. Nationality or culture is not "race". Even the US census leaves it clear. Only very ignorant people or some equally ignorant extreme white supremacists in the US or people with similar approaches can say that a "white" Mexican, Peruvian or Argentinian is not white while a "white" American is white. Again, following that line of reasoning we could say that "white" Americans are not considered white, because some Nazi organizations say that they are half-Jews. It surprises me constantly how some people think that this article is supposed to be written according to spurious and extremist views. No one in the rest of the world is interested in the "white" fantasies of "some" Americans, who think that they are the only "whites". By the way, in Spain Americans in general have never been regarded as very "white" by some people, for the simple reason that Spain was the European colonial power and the American areas the colonies. In the case of the US most of the country, by the way, a fact that some Americans seem to ignore: Just see New Spain. Still you can hear people say in Spain that Americans just have feathers in their heads, when they make decisions like going to war against Irak. Besides, "white" Americans just make a tiny fraction of the population of the world that is defined globally as white, so enough is enough with these continuous attempts to try and impose sectarian radical views of "some" Americans, especially when these Americans are so educated that they think that a "white" Mexican is not "white" because he is Mexican but a "white" American is white because he is American or that Spain is somewhere between Mexico and Guatemala. An encyclopeadia is not the place to spread American or any other type of ignorance.

In short, we are speaking about "white people" as a racial classification. Today genetics has a lot of information about "white people" and it must be shown. Anyway I would agree with the following:

1. Just a few sentences stating something like:

Genetic research has demonstrated that Europeans and other peoples traditionally considered white share the same lineages (ancestry) with other populations from Asia or Africa and that no discrete boundary can be established between "white people" and other races. As the population geneticist Cavalli-Sforza has stated, from a genetic point of view we can speak of population groups, but not races, and these population groups cut across all the traditional races.

Well something like that or just the introduction as it is. Then we could merge it as said and just leave a link to the Genetic History of Europe article. But I am afraid that "some" users here would start reverting such statements. In that case, I vote for the section to stay as it is now. I prefer much more a scientific approach than a bunch of Nazi-Nordicist rants about the white race, which is what has been happening with this page very often.

Anyway, it surprises me that the genetic section is again the issue, and not the Physical section, where people seem only interested in speaking about blond and red heads, while the immense majority of people who are defined as white have dark hair. Very interesting again. Veritas et Severitas 03:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

your right in the issue of blondes and redheads, the vast majority of white people have dark hair and dark eyes. Even if blondism or red hear is exclusive to whites (which it isnt as the north african berbers can be frequently blonde or red haired aswell as austrlian aboriginies and indian ocean islanders).

Perhaps the photos should show a group of white people as opposed to just one person, just one photo only showing people with white skin from all over the globe. That seems less nationilistic to me anyway. --Globe01 17:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Just two comments:

1. Berbers have always been considered ¨white´by physical anthropology. I do not care about uncle Tom again and the American mental diarrhoea in racial issues, although the US census itself classifies them as ¨white¨¨. So it seems that this mental diarrhoea does not represent Americans officially, but just "some" Americans or others.

2. The lack of reference in the Physical section to dark hair is incredible and should be fixed.

3. The pictures should be fixed and be more representative and less tendentious.

I will not do it myself but I will support other users if they want to do it. Veritas et Severitas 17:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Berbers have not always been considered white in physical anthropology. First, white was not a racial group recognized by all anthropologists. Second, all historical anthropologists did not group them with Europeans. Thomas Huxley considered them to be racially "Melanochroi" (dark color), Arthur Comte de Gobineau considered them to be "degenerative" formed by the miscegenation of the white and black races, and Eickstedt considered them to be Mediterraneans in a system where he did not envision the greater Caucasoid race which would tie them to Europe.--Tea 05:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

All that is needed is the mention of the fact that some indigenous Europeans who are not Jews, Gypsies, Basques, Eastern Europeans, Turkish, Sami, Italians, Greeks, or Spaniards have black hair. We cannot show that whites have black hair if the questionable whites are used as proof or else it would beg the question if they were really whites. Everyone has seen black hair and most people have black hair, so there is no need to discuss this trait further than a passing note.--Tea 05:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

To add to the Berber note, remember that they are not at all a homogenous group. You have plenty of black Berbers like the Haratin and Tuareg, many indistinguishable from West Africans south of the Sahel, as well as the Siwa Berbers. It is only the highland and coastal groups that have a significant amount of European ancestry (e.g. Kabyles, Chaoui) from paleolithic as well as more recent times. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 07:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

dark tea you racist you quote berbers as being "the miscegenation of the white and black races". You may not agree with that statement but at least et us know by showing us your opinon of the statement.

In terms of black hair, the vast majority of irish and welsh people have black hair and they are considered white. Anthropoligits consider the welsh to be of almost entirely medieterranean appearance yet the welsh are still considered white but some do not consider other mediteranean appearing nations such as italinas to be white.

There is a lot of controversy in the term of applying white to nations, (mainly from historical nordicism and pastpolitical agendasit is stupid, some italians are blond haired and blue eyed, very small numebers of scandinavians have a med appearance yet scandinavians are called a white nation.

No nation is white or non white, merely there are just different rations of white to non white poeple in those nations. --Globe01 17:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not even respond to Dark T. He makes no sense at all. Just look at his/her comments. Since administrators do not have what it takes to block people like that, at least just ignore people with severe mental diarrhoea. Note: He is the guy who said that Hitler would be a good example for the pictures or Stormfronters good contributors here. I think that is about enough for this guy. Anyway, just to uncover this guy once and for all:

1. Dark T. is a troll that defends strange Nazi-like ideas, that are even more extreme than the ones of the Nazis themselves.

2. Or, he/she is someone who hates so-called white people, Jewish people, etc, so much that will do anything to post here racist comments all the time as some kind of strategy for some kind of agenda.

In any case, as said. I propose that you just ignore him/her and keep an eye out for him/her as well in the body of the article.

And about Berber: Yes my friends, Berbers were classified as whites by 20th century main anthropologists and for the Americans that are very interested in this article, the US census classifies them as white (I do not have to give the links again, they are above). That is it. Something else is if we can speak of a discrete white race as was traditionally assumed or not etc. My opinion is 'No", but that applies to all people that wee classified as white, not just to Berbers. And again, uncle Tom's and Aunt Annies opinions are opinions of no concern here, let alone the opinions of Nazi-Nordicists that are an insult to intelligence.

And as to the issue that Berbers are a diverse people:

1. Who are not a diverse people? According to genetic anthropology (science, not aunt Annie again) with the possible exception of some Eskimos and some tribes in the remotest places of the planet, the rest of the peoples are all very diverse peoples indeed.

2 Are Americans, Australians or Brazilians not diverse? Should we say that because of that none of them should be considered "white" or that Americans, etc are not white people.

Anyway, as to some questions here, let us start with the hair section. I will just make a very extremely objective and short presentation.Veritas et Severitas 18:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics