Misplaced Pages

01/22/2004 09:42:31 (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

As a blackman who has lived in the Republic of Ireland for the best part of four years, it was indeed quite a revealing experience.The brand of racism you`ll find in Ireland, you`ll find in no other country on this planet.It is not only the interface of racial bullying and victimhood but it`s the ignorance,cretinism and stupidity and irrelevance in some of the questions posed to me while I was there.The racism is Ireland is visceral and pathological.Irish children are taught to hate.Look at the history curriculum,and you`ll understand why the situation in Ireland is so serious. There is no political correctness there. You can say almost anything you want to say about blacks,gypsies,romanians and Travellers, and get away with it.The Irish it must be remembered became a part of America`s white power structure by turning on blacks.I first visited Ireland during the 1980s when I was the only blackman in an the size of manchester,UK. It took me six months before I saw another black face.The Irish look at the black skin with quzzical puzzlement and bewilderment, wondering why the black phenotypical modality is as it is. There will be racist riots in Ireland. It`s the black skin that is problematic for the Irish. Many Irish Fathers chide their daughters on a daily to keep away from blackmen.Some Irish famillies are in conflict over a member getting pregnant for a black man. The Irish do not like race mixing, I this is one of the most significant reason why the black presence in Ireland is opened to much protestation and contestation.I am looking keenly at developments in Ireland. The Irish are far more racist than the white south africans and whites from the southern states, a fact which is generally understated because of victimhood.The Irish can bully,abuse and murder members the so-called "inferior groups, then use victimhood as a cloak of convenience. The irish are the most intolerant whites on this planet and they can create major security problems for the growing black,mostly nigerians, population there. josephcollins1@ NOSPAMhotmail.com

User 65.42.87.249, it must be pointed out to you that the context of the paragraph, that you keep on including Irish Catholics, is to exemplify the contemporary problems of the term in the USA (the USA just being an example of one place where white has a differing meaning, and problems in application as to "who is white?") as an example of how the term is indeed a social construct (ie. pointing out the people who are not as yet White in popular US definition, even though they are by US government rulings and parameters). As you can see, this context does not apply to Irish catholics anymore. Irish Catholics are White both by government standard and public opinion. Al-Andalus 21:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC).

User 65.42.87.249 me thinks you should contributing to "whiteness studies", not Whites. Celtic people are White. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. This is ridiculous.Provost 02:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The user was not saying that Celtic people are not white, rather, that they are still considered non-white by some people. As this article is primarily about sociological definitions of race, this point would be relevant, if it were true. If a significant group of people other than a few crazy, backwoods protestants in the south don't think the Irish are white, I would be most interested in seeing some evidence of that. ThePedanticPrick 15:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I would challenge anyone to find a contemporary, encyclopedic source that says "Celts are not White". Ignatiev is not Protestant, although he may be crazy!! He's for sure anti-White.Provost 23:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Personally I am from the backwoods Protestant South and am half Irish. I have never heard of Irish not being considered white before. There was a time when they were considered different, but during that period people thought of each and every nationality as a different race. This was the first time I've ever heard anyone say that they weren't white though.

Colors

The term "white" has to do with color, not ethnicity. I don't understand the confusion that surrounds this issue. Black is a description of color, African-American is a description of ethnicity. Therefore, one could be Caucasion but not white, just as one can be African-American but not black. That is why Asians and Hispanics are not considered "white" even if they are Caucasion. -an american white guy

White and Black BECAME associated with ethnicity over time. Just like "slav" (latin for slave) BECAME associated with the ethnicity of eastern europeans, and Native American BECAME associated with the indigenous people of the western hemisphere (who have about 5000 different ethnic groups). Black and white are also not mirror or opposing forces. The criteria or detail taht describes a white person may not fit well to describe a black person. For example, a white person is one who almost exclusively has very very light skin much less that 50% of the way from the lightest to darkest skin tone. A Black person at least in America is NOT one who almost exclusively has very very dark skin, and many people in the middle skin tone are considered to be Black. --68.60.55.162 06:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there are people who are called black that aren't the essence of darkness. But those self-same people aren't white. So what color would you prefer them called? I have seen very few people who are considered white who were actually white. It is necessary then also to use what is called common sense if you are going to classify by skin tone to take into account factors like tanning, or lack therof, and also to remember that you are solely judging on appearance and not taking a census. So if you're going to be that picky then we are almost all a shade of brown. But if you would like to actually discuss the skin tone categoration of people as it happens to be in the real world, then it is as I said before...South Asians and Hispanics may be Caucasion but they are not white, and you can be African-American without being black. See Provost in "Brown" up above -the same american white guy

I would prefer them to be called the ethnic group they most likely are a part of. If they are part of the Black group, then they should be black. Black and White, in history was based on skin tone. But you keep magically forgetting, that now, here and now, Black has more to do with a common heritage and ancestry than it does with skin tone. Whatever white is, yall gotta figure that out. I am not white. THE census (US) recorded over 40 million Black people, many of which do not fit what you seem to believe is the "right" criterion of blackness. In the real world, being Black is about more than just skin tone. Read the Black people article to get a better idea. --68.60.55.162 05:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me make it more clear. Being black has an aspect that is absent in white culture. It is "inclusive" and relates more to a common shared (not exlcusive) ancestry to Africa. It becomes irrelevant usually if, for example, two siblings of the same household are of different skin tones (which is very often), and in fact more often than not, the lighter skinned child of the black parent(s) will be more driven through adulthood to reaffirm the connection. Like Malcolm X, the moral intensity to remain connected to his darker skinned relatives, friends, and what not over-rides the desire to renounce the name "black" simply because the literal skin color is not jet black. Perhaps you are not familir with the fact that one word can have more than one meaning. For example, when we refer to the "black" market, we are not literally saying that the market of goods and sevices involved is a literally black covered "market". We are using "black" in another context outside of the color, which is the association of black with "illegality". With humans, black is used in another context outside of the color, which is "common heritage from Africa" (or worldwide, common heritage from Equatorial people). I really don't know how else to explain it to you. If you don't get it at this point, it's done.--68.60.55.162 05:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok how about we agree to disagree. Seeing as we are both talking at each other instead of communicating. I don't know what it is to be black, but in turn you dont know what it is to be white. Also, I am quite offended that you would imply that I didn't know words could have multiple meanings simply because I wasn't discussing perceived ethnical culture while I was talking about skin tones. I was simply trying to shed light from an american white person's point of view on american white peoples' view on what constitutes being white as opposed to being Caucasion. I never had the intention of talking about black people in the first place, and besides being a part of "black culture" and being black are two different things (at least in my opinion). That was all. I'm sorry if you were offended. But you clearly are much more passionate about it than me (and personally I think you're trying to do high dives in shallow water in this conversation), but I digress...Have you ever seen two people argue two different points to each other while thinking it was a singular conversation? Anyways farewell. -an easily excitable but largely apathetic proud white male

Initial definition

Certainly having a relatively light-coloured skin is surely a necessary condition for being 'white', even if it may or may not be a sufficient condition. I.e. I've never heard of someone with a dark skin seriously calling themselves 'white'. (Note, if relevant, that under Black (people) having a dark skin is at least part of the definition.) Hence I've added this to the initial definition. Ben Finn 19:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Mostafa Hefny, an dark skinned, knappy haired Egyptian (whose ancestry is Egyptian as far back as he can trace it) is legally considered to be White by the US governement. He was threatened to lose his government job as a teacher if he did not legally present himself as a white person. He has sued the U.S. government to change that.--68.60.55.162 06:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

===============================================================================================================

• • • This is a rather bold faced lie - more Misplaced Pages BS and lack of safeguards. It would be quite illegal in the U.S. for someone to be forced to identify as white at the risk of losing their job. Rather, he demanded to be officially considered black so that he would benefit from Affirmaive Action. Like most of this stuff, when you know the facts, you see it's actually evidence of pandering to minorities rather than oppresssing them.

• • • ref:
    • http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n5_v92/ai_19543513
    • Quote from cited reference:
    • "... Hefny said although he's from Egypt, his ancestry is from the ancient Black kingdom of Nubia, now a part of modem Egypt and Sudan."

===============================================================================================================

I've done more work tightening up the initial definition, which on close reading was pretty unclear and contained much repetition (e.g. two separate definitions of 'caucasian'!). I also cut the bit about whites being those who identify with white culture and ethnicity, as this is a circular definition, and the intended point is made already by saying they identify with European culture, Christianity and Western Civilization. I added that Hispanics are sometimes categorized as non-white (e.g. in censuses). Ben Finn 10:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Considering the large amount of attention brought by critics in the black people article, I do believe we will be spending a lot of time here cleaning up. --68.60.55.162 06:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

"...and are largely considered the population pinnacle of Western Civilization" - what does this mean? What is a "population pinnacle"? I think this was edited from something describing whites as the "pinnacle of Western Civilization", which to the extent that it means anything has vaguely supremacist overtones. The previous wording simply said whites are associated with (or something like that) Western Civilization, which at least means something and is unarguable. So I'll edit it back into something neutral and meaningful. Ben Finn 11:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Also may I point out that the first paragraph is now so full of sociological terms that it's pretty hard for any non-specialist (e.g. me) to understand. I don't think this level of jargon is necessary or desirable in the initial definition. Ben Finn 11:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

IMO the latest changes to the definition don't improve or make it clearer. Specifically:

The term "white" generally refers to a person of European descent with a connection to European culture or ethnicity; and often a combination of these attributes.

This is confusing. What is 'European ethnicity' (other then either European descent or a circular definition)? Also a 'connection to European culture' is optional, not necessary, as implied by that last bit.

Most Whites regard themselves as a people, descended from the ancient Europeans and those who joined the European continent at various times and places.

Not clear what is meant by 'regarding oneself as a people' - other than as an ethnic group or a race (since we're not talking about a nation here), but that goes without saying as we've already said 'white' is an ethno-racial classifaction.

'descended from the ancient Europeans' - we've already said that ('a person of European descent'). 'and those who joined the European continent at various times and places' - not clear what that amounts to since blacks have joined the European continent too, and ultimately all Europeans came from Africa anyway.

So I've edited the definition again accordingly. I think this article is not stable enough for it to be worth my making further edits (it currently seems to change for the worse about as often as it changes for the better) so this will be my last edit I think. Ben Finn 16:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

More work needed

The W in white should be lowercase as writing uppercase-W "White" is (which is almost never done outside the context of white supremacist literature), especially as almost all instances of "white" as a racial construct are written with lowercase-w. That is indisputably lopsided, racist, and belies the editorial slant that informs much of this article.

The single solitary link to the web leads to a very prejudiced website that for one, falsely describes the Egyptian society as a nordic one. Two, it equates any Caucasoid admixture as pure-whiteness (like nefertiti), and three equates any racial mixture in a society as the catalyst for it's downfall. I want to thank Kwertii and ThePandricPrick for inadvertently bringing these quality issues to my attention.--68.60.55.162 06:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

What's a Pandric Prick? The penis of a panda that has been studying tantric sex? ThePedanticPrick 14:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The article has only two references. In addition, the article has a biased slant that lulls the reader into believing that racial minorities (like East Indians, and Arabs) should be included as being white, thereby making "whiteness" a goal to achieve. There is too much empathsis in general on who should and can be included as being white, and not enough information regarding why that kind of thinking occurs. In other words "WHY are people driven to be included as being white instead of simply being content not being white and being whoever they are, as there is no drive to make white people replace their own ethnicity or social construct with another."--68.60.55.162 06:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The presence of Black poeple in North Africa, especially Egypt is not due to slavery. Black people have been present in North Africa, especially Egypt as far back as history and archaeology go, and slavery, especially in Egypt was not the cause of the Black presence. It was not due to arab traders trading slaves north of the Sahara. Nubians for example, living in Egypt have unquestionably been living in what is now Lake Nassar since the time of the pyramids. The southern egyptians refer to themselves as Saeedi, and are and always have been dark enough to be interchangeable with the common garden variety black person.

http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/new_pyramid/PYRAMIDS/HTML/el_pyramid_head2.htm - not a slave (no indication) http://www.egyptmyway.com/images/photo/egmuseum/djoserhorus_b530.jpg - old kingdom king, notice his profile, his head is not caucasoid in shape. His cheeks show roundness present in Blacks and mixed black people, not in caucasoids. http://www.vmfa.state.va.us/gmuvava/art/oldking/Heti2407.jpg - a scribe not a slave And those are examples of Black Egyptians in the OLD Kingdom that show strong obvious black traits. I dont even present examples of Ancient Egyptians that truely show a mixture somewhere in the middle between caucasoid and negroid. If I did, you would simply throw them in as a "sub grouping" of caucasoids. Of course you would not do that today with the 30% of the Black people in America.--68.60.55.162 06:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thanks for providing those. ThePedanticPrick 14:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

--68.60.55.162 05:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC) I sense sarcasm, and your lack of acknowledgement of the points I raise above only dilutes your credibility. It's a token-surface step in the right direction that you (or whomever else) made the corrections, and even then it's offset by the lack of detailed explanation you used in the Black people article. There are many more issues with this article, and I will be raising them as I see fit, based on how honestly you and others deal with the black people article.

Title of article

I propose this article is renamed to "White (people)", for two reasons: 1. For consistency with the article Black (people) 2. Because in the UK at least, the plural noun "whites" (and "blacks") is impolite; the normal term is "white people". Ben Finn 12:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, why not white people, then? We don't have an article at, say, English (language). - Nat Krause 11:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not necessary to mention arab slave trading

The comment about Black presence in North Africa is not about "reminding" the reader of why the Black presence is in North Africa. Through ancient history, long before Arabs had conquered Egypt, Black people were present in high percentages in Egypt. To say "due to Arab slave trading" misleads the reader, and once again lulls the reader into receiving a false explanation as to why Black people have existed in Egypt. Arab slave trading began after the Quran (8th Century A.D.), Black Egyptians have been present since before the time of Abraham (4000 BC). --208.254.174.148 13:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Your objection is based on your misunderstanding of the sentence. Of course Black Africans have been in North Africa prior to the Arab conquest, thus the Black people (as an independent population, or as a genetic legacy found in the present Arab population) in this North African area of the Middle East are there as remnants (pre-Arab invasion) of indigenous Black populations, but also as a result of natural migration patters post-Arab invasion. However, the slave trade does explain the Black genetic legacy that is to be found in the population in the Asian areas (Levant and Arabian Peninsual) of the Middle East. These areas (North Africa, the Levant, and Arabia) together make up the region that is called the Middle East. A Black presence in the non-African areas of the Middle East (whether as independent Black populations, or as a genetic legacy in the Arab population) is due to differing factors

Are you going to tell us now that Blacks evolved contemporaneously both in Africa (North) AND the Asian areas of the Middle East, and that the Black genetic legacy in the Asian Middle East are not the result of a relatively recent (in the last one thousand years) natural migration or slave trading?

A high proportion of the Yeminite population is define as Afro-Arab, and that country is not in Africa, it is in South West Asia, the black legacy of that country is not due to Blacks indigenous to that area. Al-Andalus 21:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC).

Soheir, I ask that you please stop trying to unilaterally remove anything associating Egypt with Black. It was you that kept removing statements in the Black people article that related Egypt and Black people, and I am not sure if it's you who removed the comment about the previous president of Egypt being Sudanese. I'm just going to put them back, if you have a problem, talk about it in the talk pages first. --208.254.174.148 13:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

This is all absolutely ridiculous

I am from Canada, and I have never heard of a Middle Easterner, North African or Indian ever being classified as white, anywhere. Apon reading this article I decided to look over an American Census report, just to get a better idea about things. Evidentally, on an American census report an individual can check which ever race/box he chooses, or more than one if he so chooses. ( In other words, in America anybody can claim to be white on a census paper, so long as they check the necessary box.)

The term Caucasian - or white - usually refers to white people, not brown people. If this were the case, individuals including Halle Berry, Ben Harper, Mariah Carrey, Thurgood Marshall and even Bob Marley would all fit neatly into a Caucasian catagory. Further more, Italians and most Spanish people are rarely seen as white on this side of the world.

I beleave the middle Easterners on this page are attempting to claim another man's ethnicity. Example: You do not see very many American Indians claiming to be Chinese, dispite both groups being part of a "supposed" Mongoloid common ground?? I find this all absolutely rediculous, and I am puzzled as well as startled to find that there are Middle Easterners actually insisting they are white. Absolutely rediculous.

I am startled to read such an ignorant posting. This type of attitude is what breeds prejudice and fallacy. There are many Middle Easteners who are blonde with light eyes and skin. How would you "classify" them? For example, the previous Queen of Jordan, Queen Noor is Lisa Halaby, an Arab-American who is blonde and blue-eyed. For the point of argument, I assume that you are white. Why do you self-identify as white? Because your ancestry originated from a country designated as "white"? There are black people in every country so simply being from England for example does not dictate one's ethnicity. I believe there was an official "white paper" (no pun intented) that was published by the British government in 1952 or 1953 upon Queen Elizabeth II being crowned that asserted her position as head of the Commonwealth by stating that she had some black ancestry. The statement, "I believe the Middle Easterners on this page are attempting to claim another man's ethnicity," is especially offensive, given the anthropological evidence that the "Caucasian" people originated from the Middle East. "White" is not one ethnic group. Your analogy regarding American Indians and the Chinese would make sense if you were saying that someone from the Middle East were saying they were French or German or Dutch. The "White" race contains many ethnic groups who are not exactly the same, but share common physical characteristics as compared to the other races. Personally I believe there really is one race---the human race. However, as long as people insist on classifying themselves it should be done fairly and accurately. I still cant get over the American Indian-Chinese comment as though "white" was one homogenous group. I find it interesting your being from Canada as Canada has French Canadians who maintain a distinct identity, language, culture. A "white" Canadian can be of many individual ethnic groups. So please recognize that the "white" race has a diversity of ethnic groups. It would help if the article made the point that the white race is made up of different types, i.e. Nordic, Alpine, Mediterranean, etc. Most "Caucasian" countries are made up of an intermix of these various types...some countries are more predominantly one type over another. For example, the people in Southern Germany tend to be darker and more similiar to the Mediterranean type, while people in the Northern part generally are the "Nordic" type. When you said Italians are not considered white, are you aware that in Northern Italy, people are generally blonde and light-eyed. This is the problem with stereotypes and the problem with taking a label such as "white" and trying to apply it exclusively to one type such as Anglo-Saxon to the exclusion of the other types that make up the group.

Please don't make any accusations. Middle Easterner's and North African's are considered White in some countries. Many people from that part of the world are indistinguishable from Southern Europeans. Please review WP:NPOV. --Gramaic | Talk 01:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this cute. What about those Middle Easterners that have black skin, curly hair. Are they Black, part of the "black" race? Or is that not "the same thing". Long ago, Black people were the most diverse identity group. Now somehow, presto-changeo, now white people can be anyone from Black skinned "Caucasoids" in Africa to East Indians that would visaully fit in an African American family with "good" hair. Everyone is white, except those isolated villages in West Africa. If there is a civilization in the culture's history, they will be put in the Caucasoid or White box. Just curious, that Egyptian living on the border between Egypt and Sudan... are they Black or White?

For all those who seem bent on excluding people of Middle Eastern descent from being considered "white", I would like to ask how you would classify Lisa Najeeb Halaby, the former Queen of Jordan:

http://www.harrywalker.com/speakers_pitch.cfm?Spea_ID=586

I would say she is more "European" looking than most European people. So why would she be classified as "non-white" because she was born an American of Arab descent? A person is "white" because they have Caucasian characteristics. People from the Middle East have Caucasian characteristics. It is erroneous to exclude an entire group of people because some may be considered black or "non-white". This is like saying that all British people are black because you have some black Britons. Even Queen Elizabeth has asserted that she has some black ancestry...so are all English people now to be considered "non-white"? I would classify Turkish as being both white and Arab,because it is in Europe and Asia,and because of its mixture of European and Middle Eastern cultural influence.Dudtz 10/7/05 5:59 Pm ESt

Middle Easterners are not white??... NO, sorry, they are not white!

Middle Easterners are not considered white in most parts of the world. Even within the American main stream, a middle eastern person would never be veiwed as white. Amercian census reports include middle easterners in the white catagory specifically for convenience reasons. Being white in modern America only means that you do not receive any special treatment.

In respect to "Lisa Najeeb Halaby," there have also been many black men/woman who have pass for white in the United States, however, this has never change their ethnicity.

Non-White simply means that you are not white, you should except this. There are many mulitracial people in the world who also have(quote),"caucasion features," but would never be so bold as to classify themselves a white.

Also, the white classifaction of middle easterners on American census reports is something of seriously debate amoung census researchers, and is being considered for removal.(Keep in mind, census reports are only taken around, once every 2 decades)

You don't have enough experience with Middle Eastern people. All you did was just expose your point of view. Saying that some black men and women could pass for white, is quite irrelevant for this discussion. Middle Easterners are Caucasians/Caucasoids, and African-Americans are not. Also, in the United States, all the Middle Easterners I know have considered themselves nothing but White, and were considered by there surrounding nothing but White. As for census, only a minority of Middle Easterners are trying to remove themselves from the white category. So whether you consider Middle Easterners White/Caucasian or not is just your thought. --Gramaic | Talk 04:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

In the USA, Middle Easterners do not consider themselves White, and vice-versa. Who are you trying to kid? Seriously. Be honest.Icemountain 07:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I happen to know many Iranians, none of which who consider themselves to be white, but Brown;I even know a few who have blue eyes. As for your uneducated assumption that there are no caucasoid african Americans, you need to really brush up on your anthropology;I also know of many african Americans who have blues eyes.

The term "white" is generally resevered for white people, not "brown" middle easterners. I find it very difficult to believe that you know of any "brown people"(i.e. middle easterners)living in the united states who catagorize themselves as white, and are genuinly precieved as such by main stream white America.(You are obvioulsy not from the United States, because this would never hold true?)

There is a genuine reason Middle easterners are lobbying to have themselves removed from "white census catogorization." This is because many middle Easterners are well aware that in America they are not considered white, and representation as such on census reports only allows for discrimination against this group to go unrecognized. As well, "Middle Easterners" were only added to this census category very resently, and not because they are white, but because they have no prior history in this country; therefore, it would not make any sense for the government to hand "funds" over to this minority group. In fact, there have also been many instances of Ethiopians and Somalis being classified as white on census reports. (Census report classifactions are not base on science or anthropology, but rather on socio-political matters)

The truth is, I am very surprised this conversation is even taking place. I have lived my entire life in America and Canada, and never would I have believed that a middle easterner(Sand nigger/Camel humper)would ever consider himself to be white???

("This is the most bizzare thing I have ever heard! I am sorry.")

In Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand(even south Africa, and most parts of United States) this conversation would not make hold any weight, nor make much sense.

I think all our so-called "races" are pretty fuzzy distinctions, and the lines are very blurry, so this discussion, while not irrelevant, has the potential to get pointless and hair-splitting. My general impression seems to be that the darker skinned arabs and middle-easterners are considered non-white in the US, while the lighter-skinned ones could probably pass for white. I'm not going to start vehemently defending this position, unlike some people (please watch your language, anonymous person), nor am I going to try to include it in the article, since wikipedia has a No original research policy. What we need to do here is a) find some good citations in support of the claim that arabs and middle-easterners belong to the "Caucasoid race" (whatever that is), and b) discuss briefly the acceptance or non-acceptance of Arabs and middle-easterners into "white" american society. What we don't need is a lot of heated debate and personal opinions thrown around. Also, if everyone could try to keep these discussion readable by signing their posts with four tildes (~) and making very plain which comments belong to whom, that would be very helpful. My preferred style is to use the colon to indent my response when replying to someone else's comments. The more colons you use, the further the response is indented. Thanks. ThePedanticPrick 22:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous user. I was born and raised in the United States, and most of the Middle Easterners living in this country are not brown, they are just as white as Europeans. After seeing that you used offensive words (such as "sand n*****" and "camel humper"), you sir are just a person of extreme hate! I don't care whether you consider Middle Easterners White or not, I'm not going to have a discussion with you on this topic, unless you stop ranting and stop using racial slurs. --Gramaic | Talk 06:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Gramaic, that is totally false and you know it. Middle Easterners are not White and nobody in the USA considers them White or European-Americans, including the Middle Easterners themselves. Please stop. Icemountain 07:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

No, Icemountain. What I said is not false! Middle Easterners are racially White/Caucasian. Most people in the United States considers them White, and most of the Middle Easterners in the U.S. considers themselves White. Besides, most of the Middle Easterners in this country could pass for Southern Europeans, especially the Lebanese and Syrians, who are most of the times mistaken for Italians and Greeks. BTW, you may respectfully disagree with other users if you wish, but please do not ask anybody to stop. --Gramaic | Talk 10:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

That is patently false. Most White people do not consider most Middle Easterners to be White. That is just totally unjustifiable. This is an encyclpedia, not a place for original research, so please stop the original research. Middle Easterners such as Persians and Arabs are not considered White by most people of European descent. Thanks.Icemountain 23:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, you are entitled to have any thought you want. Middle Easterners in the U.S. are considered White by most people, and most of them consider themselves White. American actors of Middle Eastern descent are always portrayed as White/Caucasian in the characters they play in the movies they're involved in. I will not go forward in this discussion. Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 03:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Middle Easterners are not considered white by the majority of all people (white or non-white) in the United States. I respectfully disagree that examples of a few "actors", chosen by Hollywood casting agents, is a representative sample of Middle Easterners for this subject. Icemountain 03:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

If middle eastern is white, then how come myself (a Palestinian) was accused of wanting to "kill white people" in school, made fun of for my dark skin, called a "sand nigger", a "camel-jockey", a "bomb thrower", and other names people probably have never even heard of. I'm not an especially dark-skinned Arab, but believe me those white kids knew the difference in school, and it never even occured to me that Middle Easterners are considered white until I had to sign up for college and middle-eastern was not on there a choice for race

Time for a reality check

This DNA based website should be a wake up call for the white people all over the world.

http://www.backintyme.com/Essay040608.htm

why? we're talking about skin tone?

No we aren't. Pale complexioned black people are not considered "white" nor are pale compelxioned Japanese, Chinese, East Indians with Dravidian features... - Zaph

This article needs positive input about White People

This is not the place to discuss "White Supremacy" and "Neo-nazis" ad infinitum. There are other pages for that. Thank You. Please contribute something positive about White people and Western Civilization.Provost 18:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

A simple discussion of the views of white-separatist and white-nationalist groups is not anti-white. Not once does it say anything close to "These groups are racist and bad." Given that most scientists do not believe that race exists at the biological level, this page would do better to discuss sociological definitions of "white" and their impact on society. There are plenty of pages that promote the acheivements of "white" individuals and societies. The link you insist on including in the article is not only racist, but unscientific and unprofessional. ThePedanticPrick 20:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

"White nationalists in the United States often have a definition of "whiteness" that is more limited than the official government definition. "Whiteness" in this case implies an ancestry that is solely or overwhelmingly European, but also requires a psychological identification with the European ethnicity" I would say most White people acknowledge this, they don't have to be "White Nationalist". How about changing that to White people in the U.S.?Provost 22:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You make a good point. I think what that paragraph means to, and should, say is that white-nationalist groups are more likely to exclude southern Europeans like Spanish and Italians. Does that sound right? ThePedanticPrick 22:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's right. You might want to research it. BUT THE POINT I'm trying to make, is that Misplaced Pages already has articles about White Nationalism, whiteness studies, etc. This page should focus on White people, not these fringes. This is not the anti-White page. Let's get real. Why is there a paragraph in this article that contains references to Colin Powell, Cuba, Brazil, Oprah, Tiger Woods, uses the terms mulatto, quadroon, and octoroon? All of this is great, but it most surely doesn' belong here. Some people on Misplaced Pages love to make anti-White edits, and seem to have the desire to put a "neo-nazi" and "fascism" link into every page, it's just pathetic. White people won World War II and took out the Nazis. Go check the Wonder Bread page, and see if there's a long paragraph about "neo-nazis" or "anti-semitism". If it isn't there, someone will get to it soon, I'm sure. sarcasm off. Provost 00:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

>White people won World War II and took out the Nazis

And the Nazis themselvs were... what color, exactly? Moncrief 23:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is NOT about the definition of White as seen by one group or country (whether it be as interpretid by white nationalists, white supremacists, race abolitionists, "anti-Whites", Americans, Cubans, North Africans, Britons or Germans) It is about what "White" is for all these groups, since White has no standard definition. That's the point! As the article already states;

• A common element to the various definitions of "white" today, is that the term refers to a person of European descent. Also generally associated to white people is European culture, Christianity (whether as a religion or part of their cultural heritage) and Western Civilization. Outside this scope, the inclusion and/or exclusion of other groups of people may vary from country to country due to differing popularly espoused understandings of the term, definitions based on government guidelines, or factors of socio-racial implication.

It states perfectly well that anything else is an exception to what every definition of white has in common. This is where we get into the problem of the constant re-inserting of Middle Easterners and North Africans in the intro. They are just as much an exception as any other person included as white in any given definition. Let's be real here, every definition excludes Middle Easterners and North African from the White label except the American government's definition (even the popular American definition exludes them, or accepts some of them but rejects others of the same region, even here it varies).

That sentence cannot by good faith go in the intro because it misleads the reader. The article is not a podium to propagate the validity of one definition over another (in this case the American definition, and of the American government at that), but to present them all, and to present White as what it is, a social construct loosely based on race.

Who is to say that the American definition of White is any more valid than the French definition (or any other European definition, or the Australian or the Latin American definitions) for the exception found in the American one to be mentioned above any other that may exist in the other definitions. Keep ALL EXCEPTION where they are currently positioned in the article, not in the oppening paragraph. To prioritise any eception and position it in the intro, without mentioning other exceptions in the "For exmnple", is upholding priotiy to the that particular definition and is POV as a result.

As for white nationalists, supremasits and separatists, whether one agrees with them or not, they too have varying definition of whiteness. As such, their unpopularity as racist enteties should not get in the way of a complete assessment of the term White in ALL it's contexts, as opposed to what some have insinuated is an assessment of White nationalists themselves. Nothing in the article has assessed what or who white nationalists are, what they stand for, or whether they are in the best interest of anything or anyone. It deals solely with just more definitions of White as held by people who happen to espous certain ideologies. 02:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Al-Andalus, you should be posting in whiteness studies. The accepted definition of Whites involves Europe, Western Civilization, modern European ethnic people, and European descendants. All the rest of the arguments, etc. are PERIPHERAL belong on whiteness studies. Provost 02:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Provost, this is a part of the difficulty you're having in understanding the reason for this article. "The accepted definition of Whites involves Europe, Western Civilization, modern European ethnic people, and European descendants." No, those are the elements that the various definitions have in common. From those elements that you cited are other groups of people then added or subrtacted to become the various definitions that there are. Like every other group, community or country with his/her/its own definition of white, YOUR problem is that YOU are under the impression that YOUR definition is the accepted one. THAT, my friend, is the purpose of this page. In any case, if by what you yourself have stated that "The accepted definition of Whites involves Europe, Western Civilization, modern European ethnic people, and European descendants" I find it curious that you, much like Gramaic, continue to insist on inserting into the opening paragraph Middle Easterners and North Africans, which although they are a caucasoid people, their region is not a part of Europe, their culture is not that of the West, the religion of the region's majority population is not Christian, and they are not a modern European ethnic people nor are they European descendants; all of which you said constitutes Whites by the accepted definition with "all the rest of the arguments" being "PERIPHERAL" . Al-Andalus 06:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC).

Al-Andalus, I'm sorry but all that did was just expose your POV. There is no such thing as an accepted or simple definition of White. If you really want a very simple definition of White, why don't we just define it as blond haired and blue eyed people that originate from Northern Europe. Yes, Middle Easterners and North Africans are discussed later in the article, but as I said before it wouldn't hurt anyone if we had a small statement about it in the intro. So what if the ME or NA is not in the West, the Asian part of Russia is in the East, does that make people from the Asian part of Russia not White. You also mentioned that the majority of Middle Easterner's and North African's are not Christian, yes that's true. Well many Albanians, who are of course European, are in fact Muslim, does that make Albanians non-White? As an American born man, I can't accept the definition of White just being European. Please let's remain NPOV, and be open for God's sake! Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 09:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Gramaic, I think you misunderstood Al-Andalus, who was arguing against Provost's assertion that there is an "accepted definition of white". The fact remains that Middle Easterners are usually not considered white. Because they are an exception to most common, popular definitions of white, they don't belong in the intro. The intro needs to stay short and to the point; it is not a place for "For example,"s. If we allow this under the guise of "Let's please be NPOV", then next week a Hispanic or South-Asian person will come in demanding that we include a similar sentence about their "race" in the intro. The current paragraph on middle-easterners is quite good, and it is in the correct place—the "Who is white?" section, which deals with the varying definitions. I think we need to realize that this is a debate about style and presentation, not POV. As an aside, I wonder if you've noticed that the username Al-Andalus suggests arabic ethnicity or at least an affinity for arabic culture and language. ThePedanticPrick 13:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Very well, ThePedanticPrick. I'll leave the article the way it is, and will go no further in this debate. Thanks, --Gramaic | Talk 19:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Are we working on 2 different articles?

Al-Andalus, you wrote: Provost, this is a part of the difficulty you're having in understanding the reason for this article. I see the issue, but I believe the information you are covering belongs in whiteness studies or Census info or White studies, etc. Is this article not titled "White people"? So were does all this quadroon, octoroon, census stuff belong? I really think it's been covered already in other articles, perhaps we could link to it instead. What I hope is that this article doesn't become another page detailing "white supremacism" etc. There are a ton of those pages already on Misplaced Pages. On Misplaced Pages, there is no central article linking together articles and history of White/European-descended people, and is this not the correctly titled place to put that together? I realize that it's a gargantuan task to accomplish given the tremondous ground it covers.Provost 15:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

As proud as I may be of the various contributions of "white" people to civilization today, I think you might end up biting off more than you can chew by attempting to catalogue all the achievements of the white race. You'd end up arguing with a bunch of non-white and anti-white people about which accomplishments could not have occurred without input from black Egypt, India and East Asia, the cheap labor provided by slavery, never mind being constantly attacked for "Euro-centrism"(a rather ambiguous term, in my opinion). You'd also have a bunch of people demanding that you enumerate all the atrocities caused by white people over the centuries, which, I'm sad to say, have been numerous. And which of the many definitions of "white" would you use to decide whether an event involves white people? Why don't we stick to discussing the various definitions of "white"? If you want to add some links to Category:Europe or Western Civilization, that's fine.

I'm not sure what your objection is to the short mention that mulattos are considered white in one or two countries. Given that the section heading is "Who is white?", I think it bears mentioning that other countries have differing definitions. There's nothing wrong with summarizing in one sentence a topic that has its own article. ThePedanticPrick 16:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Pendantic, you wrote I think you might end up biting off more than you can chew by attempting to catalogue all the achievements of the white race. You'd end up arguing with a bunch of non-white and anti-white people. So, do you suggest that a catalogue of the history and achievements of White people (good and bad) be dropped altogether because some anti-White editors want to be bigots? We'll handle the anti-White editors the same way anti-semites are treated, to keep negative propaganda to a minimum.Provost 16:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

You replied to only a small fraction of my argument. Try again. ThePedanticPrick 18:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Whiteness and White nationalism

Do we need this section? This article is suppose to focus on how the meaning of White was defined over the generations, not talk about a type of extremism. Most of the general public are unaware of the term "White nationalism," which is of course just another term for "White supremacy." BTW, I don't think it's appropriate to have A history of the white race (which is a bunch of texts written by a white supremacist named Arthur Kemp) as an external link or reference. Thanks. --Gramaic | Talk 08:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Since the article is about varying definitions of "white", I think it's appropriate to mention that some people have a more restrictive definition than others. I am opposed to letting that section get much longer than one paragraph, however. About the link, it is clearly the most biased, racist interpretation of history I've ever seen. It proudly portrays Hitler next to other great white men of history, and the underlying theme is that racial diversity leads to the downfall of great civilizations. I don't think it belongs in this article at all, at least not without a disclaimer. ThePedanticPrick 14:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

ThePedanticPrick maybe you could read the link, before mischaracterizing it? It doesn't proudly portray Hilter, OK? He was a historical figure, a "reckless blunderer" that started a White civil war (WWII) that killed 50 million White Christians. It says clearly: This is their incredible story - of vast visions, empires, achievements, triumphs against staggering odds, reckless blunders, crushing defeats and stupendous struggles. It's a relevant link. Thanks.Provost 17:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Provost, I don't need to drink an entire gallon of milk to know whether or not it's rotten. I doubt a site that has the goal of discouraging racial mixing and condemning non-white races as inferior would have that many bad things to say about Hitler. Even your attempt to play down the portrayal of Hitler on the front page just exposes you as one of his many apologists. Your only complaint about Hitler is that he recklessly started a war with his white, christian bretheren. As a white atheist, I'd hate to live in a country where you or your kind were in charge. ThePedanticPrick 18:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

You better watch those personal attacks, they are in violation of WP policy. There are many different opinions about this subject, that's why the link ought to be represented. Links on WP often represent a cross-section of thought on a given subject. If you have something from the "white atheist" camp (that is not mainstream in the world), and it's in any way relevant, then link it too, by all means. And how is calling Hitler a reckless blunderer being an apologist? What you said makes no sense. An apologist would try to downplay the history, not discuss it openly as the tragedy it was.Provost 19:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

About the section, that it should not be more than a paragraph long, yes I agree with you on that. You're absolutely right about that website, I've read the most biased trash from that site. For example, it refers to Italy as a bi-racial nation, saying that most of the Whites in Italy are mostly concentrated in the North. --Gramaic | Talk 18:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello there. I think both of you guys are being reactionary. First of all, there are already tons of 'neo-nazi", anti-White, and "supremacist" sites on Misplaced Pages. This reallly isn't the place for it again. Secondly, the web link is relevant. Misplaced Pages articles, especially in the weblink section, are always a balance of contrasting sources. That link has tons of information in it that is relevant and accurate. Balance it, please don't delete it. Your summary of the author's characterization of Italy is wrong.Provost 16:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

That photograph is absolutely absurd

Why, to illustrate an article about people, would you have a sculpture carved in rock?? That makes no sense. It looks like an Unencyclopedia parody. Yes, I know those presidents, as human beings, were all white. Here, however, they're all made of rock. The photo is very unhelpful. Moncrief 05:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

They are also dead, how better could they be reflected? Let's ban wooden crucifixes as poor representations of Christ next? Why shouldn't White people of accomplishment be represented on the White people page?Provost 16:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's an idea. If you want to use those people to illustrate the white people article, why not use, at the very least, a painting of them, so we can see what white people look like in human, not stone, form? Moreover, I'm not sure that this is the best place for "white people of accomplishment." That's not the subject of the article. The subject of the article is white people in general. So a photograph of some generic white people would seem to be the most apt illustration of the topic. Moncrief 16:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Please stop reverting correction of this paragraph

These colour terms were in more common usage in the beginning of the 20th century as ethno-historians attempted to trace humanity's history through linguistics (on the basis of language family) and cultural and physical traits. A commonly-held 19th century view was that white people were the descendants of Indo-Europeans, and divided into two categories; Semitic and Aryan. This view is now held by academia to be flawed, since Semitic people, although Caucasoid, are not a sub-group of Indo-Europeans; "Aryan" was erroneously applied by European anthropologist to themselves; and South Asians were altogether excluded, despite being a caucasoid people, and unlike Semitic peoples, are actually a sub-group of Indo-Europeans. Most popular and government definitions still do not categorize South Asians as white. Paradoxically, the term "Aryan", highly associated with white supremacy, most correctly applies to Vedic South Asians.

• Color terms have no relation to linguistics and have never been particularly used by linguists
• "ethno-historian" is at least an anachronism and probably a neologism
• Semitic was never considered a subgroup of Indo-European
• South Asians do not all speak Indo-European languages (neither do all Europeans for that matter, either past or present)
• Race and language are not synonymous and this point needs to be made.
• Conflation of race and language was typical of 19th century and earlier.
• Bad and overly verbose writing

--JWB 13:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

My vote's with the slimmed-down version of the paragraph, but that's just my personal preference. I don't see anything wrong with pointing out that scientists have made mistakes, like linking linguistics with race. ThePedanticPrick 18:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Classification of Middle Eastern People In US

There has been some debate about this issue but Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedia has responsibility to present facts as it may be cited as a source for research papers, etc. The PedanticPrick stated that most Americans do not consider people of Middle Eastern origin to be "white". This is his opinion and simply not accurate. Examples have been presented of well-known and prominent Arab-Americans who are seen as "white" in American society.

I looked up the term "white" in Webster's Dictionary. As the term related to people, it said, "a person whose racial heritage is Caucasian." (Webster's Dictionary, Copyright 2000) The same dictionary then defined Caucasian as "of designating, or characteristic of one of the traditional racial divisions of humankind, marked by fair to dark skin, straight to curly hair, and light to very dark eyes and orig. inhabiting Europe, North Africa and parts of W. Asia."

As some other comments have stated in this discussion history, what is presented needs to be NPOV. Otherwise, the value of Misplaced Pages is diminished as a credible source if everyone just changes the article based on opinion.

Anonymous person, please don't assign me certain prejudices unless you know I hold them. I never said arabs are not white, and when I say "most americans think such-and such", I am rarely including myself. I know there are many fair-skinned arabs, but I don't think most americans are aware of this. In addition, there is strong anti-arab and anti-muslim sentiment in the US right now, which leads to them being seen as outsiders, non-white, just as many light-skinned hispanics are considered non-white. However, since I haven't conducted any formal poll of american opinion on the matter, I really don't know for certain. ThePedanticPrick 14:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I found some evidence to support my opinion: "Although the U.S. census classifies Arabs as white along with the European majority, a sizable number believe they are not treated as whites, but more like such other minorities as Asians Americans and Hispanic Americans A definition of Arab-Americans(The Arab-American Institute)" ThePedanticPrick 14:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The quote that you included underscores my point. You are excluding this group of people from the article even though the US census says to the contrary and without any formal poll of american opinion on the matter. So of course some would feel they are not being treated as whites. As you stated you dont know for certain, yet you continuously do the removal even when this information was there in the article originally. Also, you neglected to include what the linked article from the Arab-American Association said about Christian Arab-Americans "not being greatly distinguished from Euro-centric American culture." The photo of the park rangers that is included in the article caught my eye. Any one of these people could be of Arab descent, especially the woman at the end with dark hair and eyes. It would be too ironic if one of these people happened to be Arab-American and are included in a photograph of "white americans", yet there is the omission of people of Middle Eastern descent being included as it was originally included in the previous versions of the article.

The Arab is not considered White in the USA. Examples have been presented of well-known and prominent Arab-Americans who are seen as "white" in American society. is the exception rather than the rule. A group like CAIR does not consider themselves White or descendents of Europeans (the most common definition), and they represent millions of Arab-Americans. Provost 19:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

ThePedanticPrick, you say that because of the strong anti-Arab sentiment is one of the factors that most people don't consider Arabs white. During World Wars I and II, there was a strong anti-German sentiment, does that mean that the Geramans in those eras were not white? Provost, about you mentioning the organization CAIR. CAIR is a Muslim organization not Arab, CAIR has membership that ranges from Arabs, non-Arabs, so there's no official race for this organization. Most of the Middle Eastern population I have known have always considered themselves nothing but racially White, and everybody around them; ranging from Middle Easterners, Europeans, Asians etc. have considered them nothing but White. --Gramaic | Talk 20:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You're missing the point. What we have here are two separate facts: a) Arabs are, for the most part, white. b) Most Americans see arabs as a non-white minority. Fact a doesn't disprove b anymore than b disproves a, so both of them belong in the article. ThePedanticPrick 15:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, a major point of WWI Allied propaganda actually was calling the Germans Huns, an Asian group.--JWB 13:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The article included people from the Middle East and North Africa as white before. If as you say most Americans arent aware of this, how are you promoting education by removing this information from the article? You are only promoting an erroneous stereotype. I noticed the addition of the picture of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Did you know that at least one Arab-American served in the Revolutionary War? Nathan Badeen, originally from present-day Syria enlisted and fought in the Continental Army's 18th Regiment in 1776. Arab-Americans have been a part of this country and society since before there was an official United States of America. Excluding people from the Middle East when they were included before is exactly why they are now being seen as "other." The purpose of the article is to essentially define who is "white" not the vagaries of American public opinion...and you have not proven that most Americans see Arabs as a "non-white" minority. Most Americans are not even aware of who Arab-Americans are because they don't know that their neighbor or parishoner (your points ignore that Arab and Muslim are not one and the same. Most Arab-Americans are CHRISTIAN) are even Arab-American...they may vaguely assume they are of some European descent. The points Gramaic made are correct and the earlier references in the article where people of Middle Eastern and North African descent were removed should not have been. Misplaced Pages should be promoting factual information that does not further lead to people being considered "outsiders." Why is your "Fact A" not included in the article which would be relevant to the topic of the article?

Mark Shriver study

I'm removing this because the conclusion makes this trivial, and not particularly relevant.

• Shriver pointed out: "There is a very small degree of overlap in the population distributions." In America, most of the whites are extremely European and most of the blacks are quite African.
• Among those whites found in Shriver's study to have black ancestry, they average an admixture of 2.3% black (of 128 grandparents, 3 are black and 125 are white).

What is trivial about this? I think it makes an important point about the US, that the reason the White/Black distinction made sense was because the population consisted of relatively separate communities of generally very light and very dark people. This is less true in much of the US now and accordingly the term "White" has become less useful. Most other countries do not have a strict color line either, and either have a continuum or are homogeneous. My vote is for putting it back. --JWB 13:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

By my understanding of the study, it concluded that the white and black populations of the US have actually mixed very little. It's interesting that the person who initially cited the study tried to use it to support the exact opposite conclusion. Did they neglect to read the article, or were they deliberately misleading readers? In any case, the study's results are certainly germane to a discussion on race in society. I'd like to see it described in more detail on this page. ThePedanticPrick 15:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The Shriver study concludes that there is little mixture, does it not? Whoever put the study in there, in the first place, was trying to state and imply otherwise, in contradiction to the study's conclusions.Icemountain 04:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It may be that some people consider it is news that there is any mixture at all. --JWB 06:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

We need a better photo

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)

IMO, the article's scope should not include history except as relevant to the history of the "white race" concept itself. If anything European or American is fair game, you could justify sucking in the majority of Misplaced Pages's content. Leave the Declaration of Independence in American history articles. --JWB 02:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

If you ask me, there's no need for this article to have a picture. We all know what a white person looks like. --Gramaic | Talk 03:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Assuming "we all know" something is naive. Certainly there should be a photo of a horse in the article for Horse even though "we all know" what one looks like. But the photo that's there now in this article is really the wrong photo for this particular article. Moncrief 03:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

White Trash (ethnic slur)

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)

• My feeling is that its inappropriate. We're trying to build a legitimate encyclopedia, so an epithet is not necessary. It could open up a pandora's box where we list all slurs on the relevant subject pages? Not a good idea. Regarding "white trash" being different from "nigger", there's not much difference.

Misplaced Pages: 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....."

White trash appears to be a thoughtful article with lots of good information and analysis related to the concept of "white race" in the USA. I don't think we should be ashamed to link it. It is probably a better written and less racist article than this one.--JWB 09:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

Yes, of course it's an insult; for that matter all racial terms are most often used as insults. This does not mean they are non-encyclopedic. I notice you removed a bunch of film and literary references from White trash as unsourced even though they prominently cite the works in question.--JWB 19:17, 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)

The scope of this page is mostly the interaction of race and socio-economic status. It is not primarily about physical characteristics (anthropology articles like Caucasoid focus on this) or about listing famous white people or historically white countries (a huge number of other articles do this).--JWB 20:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

White-history link

Certain misguided bigots keep trying to include the following link in the external links section: 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)

You acknowledge haven't even read it, but you know the "agenda"? You claim the site is a mere "hate" site, which it is clearly not. It covers 350 centuries of the history of the White race, in terms related to the subject topic: White people and the White race. This article is about the White race, so history as viewed through the lens of White people is relevant. The link should not be deleted outright. It's a huge compendium of information, and a bibliography and footnotes are provided for you to review. And can you show some evidence of your claim of "hate"? I suggest you review a few of the chapters to see what your strong objections are. There's great amounts of raw information and history there. It may not be perfect, but look at the breadth of the subject. The link shouldn't be deleted. Icemountain 22:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The agenda is plain for anyone with an ounce of perception to see. On the front page, it says: "Most importantly of all, revealed in this work is the one true cause of the rise and fall of the world's greatest empires - that all civilizations rise and fall according to their racial homogeneity and nothing else - a nation can survive wars, defeats, natural catastrophes, but not racial dissolution." I see no reason why a description of this agenda should be added next to the link. ThePedanticPrick 21:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but it also says its agenda is: "The complete and comprehensive history of the White Race, spanning 350 centuries of tumultuous events". The vast majority of the information in the link/book is raw historical data about the history of White people and White nations. Not many other books or sources that I am aware of have performed such a huge undertaking and I applaud the guy for compiling it and analyzing it. It's more than just a history of Europe and the USA, it looks at it through the lens of White people, which is why it's particulary valuable to this article. It is an incredible resource of data. If the link itself, describes itself on its top page in a way you agree with (as the other description I agree with), then why do we have to have a moniker with it here? Let the reader see the site and determine whether it's a valuble source of info (with footnotes) and history, or just a polemic on racial issues. Thanks. Icemountain 22:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's address these lies one by one:

• "Yes, but it also says its agenda is 'The complete and comprehensive history of the white race'..." So what? It only offers up this 'history' in service of its agenda--to promote the belief that racial mixing leads to the downfall of civilization.

• • I disagree. The majority of chapters cover historical events viewed through a white racial lens, for instance noting wars in which Whites were on both sides (WWII, US Civil War, etc.) and also when wars were based on colonialization and races were on opposite sides. This is history as it occurred, it is not objectionable.Icemountain 02:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• "The vast majority ... is raw historical data" Wrong! Almost every chapter is a piece of history misread and distorted to serve as an example for the author's thesis--that racial mixing leads to the downfall of any civilization.

• • I believe you are using hyperbole. Chapter 29 to use just one example among the many chapters I have reviewed, is very factual. It doesn't involve so-called white supremacy either, since England and the "oppressed" Irish were both white. Again, it is a good summary of White history, the bad with the good. Most chapters are similar, if you take the time to review them please.

• "Not many other books or sources that I am aware of have performed such a huge undertaking" Then I guess you are unaware of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, the World Book, any decent high-school or college textbook on European and/or American History, and the rest of Misplaced Pages. All of these are sources that cover the history of the "white race" (whatever that is) in all its breadth and depth, but don't try to discourage racial mixing while they do it.

• • Yes, there are histories of Europe etc. but not one that covers it from a "White" persepctive which is why this work is valuable and meaningful to this article. This is not the Western Civilization article, this article is about White people, and it could benefit from a White history link. Can you offer a better one?

• "it looks at (history) through the lens of white people" No it doesn't, it looks at pseudo-history viewed through the eyes of a stupid, ignorant, racist bigot. As a white person, I'm deeply offended that you would make that generalization.

• • Listen to the way you sound please. Stupid, ignorant? A compilation of 350 centuries of data and history is no small feat. There are plenty of footnotes and it is thoroughly researched. Racist? Well, it claims to be a history of the White races, which it is. Can something be racist or about the White race and not be bad?

• "It is an incredible resource of data" This one is actually true--no sane person would consider it a credible source.

• • Kindly show where there is a historical inaccuracy? There are enormous amounts of historical facts summarized specifically as it relates to the White races. When the plague killed one-third of the White race, is that not a fact?Icemountain 02:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

ThePedanticPrick

Just as one example, cites an older article to claim Europeans lived in eastern China, which was based on poor analysis and later refuted in the same journal. The whole site mixes commonly known history with wild and often documentably false racist interpretations and pseudo-facts to make the latter look plausible. This viewpoint is repugnant to almost all white people, and the site should not be showcased as an objective or reliable source, or as representing the viewpoint of white people.--JWB 01:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

White history is repugnant to white people? Plus, is that the "documentably false data" you have come up with? the last Appendix 17? about Ancient China? a link? Have you personally reviewed the scientific data, the DNA issues in those links, to support your slam job? C'mon. That's not what this discussion is about. The site is not "false" and neither is the history contained and summarized in it.Icemountain 02:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

White-history.org was written by a white supremacist who goes by the name of Arthur Kemp. As ThePedanticPrick said, it is a hate site. I've even seen a link on that site which is supposedly about Italian history, which says that Italy is a biracial nation, and the majority of the "White Italians" reside in the Northern part of Italy. The site is not only misleading and false, but also is very biased and hateful. --Gramaic | Talk 06:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Who are the people that call it a "hate site"? I don't see it that way, it's not written in a propagandist or "hateful" fashion, and it is not supremacist. Can you show where this occurs repeatedly? Can you look at the entirety of the site, and not one or two problems you find? Also, are you referring to Chapter 37 on Italy? That is factual and well compiled history. It has barely any "controversial" elements in it. You cannot take an entire source, pinpoint a couple of items and then delete something this comprehensive. If the subject site has "a link" that you object to, you want to toss the entire 99.98% of the rest of it? Your description of it as "misleading and false", is based on your personal interpretation of a link of Southern Italian history that Italians continue to debate today? That's misleading and false to claim the entire subject source is bogus, when it's cleary not. C'mon. Icemountain 02:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Nambia and Zimbabwe

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

Mulattos, quadroons, octoroons, and the one-drop rule

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)

This stuff might be best handled by experts on each country. In my opinion, this article should note that standards differ by country, time, or even individuals' opinions (as one study in Brazil found, terms for race do not even have a consistent meaning) but should not get bogged down in debates about exactly who is white. It's more important to explain the history and meaning of the concept.--JWB 20:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It isn't that "any white admixture rendered a person white". I would invite the both of you to read the article properly. It basically says any black admixture in the U.S. rendered a person non-white, and because in U.S. race relations there are only two categories (i.e. black or white), so non-White inevetably means black. In other countries of the Americas, any white admixture renders a person non-Black, however, in the race relations of these countries there are more than just two categories (i.e. not just black or white), so atlthough "non-black" here DOESN'T atomatically mean "white", it nonetheless could, and manytimes does.

• Race in Another America : The Significance of Skin Color in Brazil

by Edward E. Telles

Pages; 1-2

"Recently, the president of the United States asked the president of Brazil, “Do you have blacks, too?” Unbeknownst to President Bush and many other North Americans, that South American country currently has more than three times as many inhabitants of at least partial African origin as the United States. Both the United States and Brazil were colonized by a European power that dominated militarily weaker indigenous populations and eventually instituted systems of slavery that relied on Africans. In the Brazilian case, European colonists and their descendants enslaved and imported eleven times as many Africans as their North American counterparts. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, both countries receive millions of immigrants from Europe as they sought to industrialize. Since then, the light-skinned descendants in the United States and Brazil have come to dominate their darker-skinned compatriots through discriminatory practices that derive from racial ideology, creating what sociologist call racially stratified societies. Both societies have experimented with affirmative-action policies to promote blacks and members of other disadvantaged groups, beginning in the 1960’s in the United States and only recently in Brazil. However, the major similarities between these two large multiracial countries regarding race may end there. For one, the vast majority of persons in the United States with any African origin are catergorized as black. In Brazil, large numbers of persons who are classified and identify as white (branco) have African ancestors, not to mention the brown (pardo, moreno), mixed race (mestiço, mulato), and black (preto, negro) populations. Unlike in the United States, race in Brazil refers mostly to skin color or physical appearance rather than to ancestry. This difference, and many others regarding race matters, between the two countries derives from two distinct ideologies and systems of modern-day race relations. Although both racial systems are rooted in the ideology of white supremacy, their respective racial ideologies and patterns of race relations evolved in radically different ways as they responded to distinct historical, political, and cultural forces. W.E.D.Du Bois arguably set the stage for the study of race relations in the first decade of the twentieth century when he declared the color line as the problem of the century. However, that assertion was clearly based on the bifurcated U.S. model, where blacks and whites were understood to be clearly separate groups. Had Du Bois witnessed the Brazilian case, he may have perceived that racism and discrimination were important social problems there, but he is unlikely to have identified the color line as the central problem. Also, Du Bois noted that blacks were exceptionally excluded from North American democracy; but for the most of the twentieth century, there was no democracy in Brazil. Most of the population, including many whites, was excluded from access to even the basic rights and subject to authoritarian domination. Since Du Bois, the relation of blacks and whites in the United States has continued to serve as the paradigmatic case for the sociological understanding of race. Theories derived from the U.S. case are often then illegitimately applied to interpret other cases. In particular, mechanisms affecting race relations in the United States are often assumed to exist in other places like Brazil. But this is clearly not the case..." (Pages, 1-2)

• Coal to Cream : A Black Man's Journey Beyond Color to an Affirmation of Race

by Eugene Robinson

There were literally dozens of terms for skin color in Brazil-black, white, mulatto, and pardo, of course, but also more fanciful and evocative terms. In surveys, Brazilians have described themselves or others as "burned," "burned by the sun," "around midnight," "chocolate," "coffee with milk," and "navy blue." One particularly subtle and elusive hue was called "miscegenation..." There was another clear difference, one that made the two societies in a sense mirror images. American orthodoxy is that a single drop of African blood inevitably darkens its host. In Brazil, the problem is approached from the other end of the scale: A single drop of European blood is seen to inevitably whiten. There is at least one clear, indisputable effect of the one-drop-darkens view of the world versus the every-little-bit-lightens view: The American scheme tends to maximize the number of black people, or people of color, or nonwhites-whatever term you prefer-within a given population, while the Brazilian view tends to minimize the count. In the United States, if your father is black and your mother is white, then you're black-there is no way that our society is ready to consider the son of a black man anything but black. In Brazil, it's not that simple. If your father is white and your mother is black, then your own category will depend on a lot of things, most important your skin color. If you're very, very dark or very, very light, then it's an easy call. If you fall into a middling café au lait range of skin tones, then you're probably going to be thought of as more white than black. Another effect, perhaps less clear-cut, involves the general level of racial tension. In Brazil a person with discernible African heritage is not necessarily immutably black. If you're light-skinned, and if your hair can be called wavy instead of kinky, and if you're upwardly mobile you can call yourself mulatto if you choose and perhaps even white. In the United States, black people can educate themselves and make money and enter the upper reaches of society, and still they and their children and their children's children will always be black. Except for a handful of people who "passed" as white, there has never been any conceivable way out, never been a means of escape. Black people thus had to make a stand. They had to demand their due from society as black people, now and forever." (Pages 26-27)

I hope this sorts out any problems with the constant reverts. Al-Andalus 18:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC).

Searching on the Brazilian color terms gives lots of good references.

In the spring of 1988, the Black consciousness movement sought to further its goals during the centennial of the abolition of slavery in Brazil by organizing mass public demonstrations against racial discrimination. By the 1990s, the debate in Brazil had also crystallized around changing procedures for collecting and reporting official data on race—particularly on the decennial census. The goal has been to replace the distinct color categories of preto and pardo with the single racial category of negro. The net result of these new trends has been to move Brazilian race relations toward a greater emphasis on the negro/branco (or Black/White) dichotomy, if not the strict enforcement of the one-drop rule of hypodescent.

There is now a corpus of work on the basis of which many scholars believe that racial categories in Brazil are quite different from their counterparts in the US (Harris et al 1995, 1993; Byrne et al 1995; Harris 1970; Sanjek 1971; Harris & Kottack 1963). The main contention is that racial categories in Brazil are highly ambiguous with very fuzzy boundaries. In light of my findings, I shall now argue that this conclusion is premature and, given the methodology employed so far by Harris and colleagues, not yet supported by any data.--JWB 20:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with TPP on bringing some sources in for some of the statements.Icemountain 00:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

And I will go ahead and trim that paragraph back down until we get some sources for the more dubious claims. ThePedanticPrick 16:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Are all Hispanics non-white?

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)

There are several different but overlapping categorizations going on here: Anglo vs. Hispanic based on language or recent ancestral language; Latin American vs. European, African, Asian, and Native American (of the US not Latin America) based on continent of origin or recent ancestral origin; and La Raza or mestizo or Native American (including indigenes of Latin America) vs. white/Caucasian, black, etc. based on race (continent of ancient ancestral origin, more or less).

IMO Hispanic is contrasted with "white" only when "white" is being used as shorthand for "white Anglo". I don't think anyone would deny that many Spanish people are white even under more restrictive definitions excluding Mediterraneans. What is needed is not the assumption that they must fit in one box, but an explanation of how those three categorizations differ. --JWB 18:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

GEEEEEZUSSSS!

"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

Yeah, I think the absolute statement is a very bad idea and should be weakened to "some South Asians" or "some North Indians and Pakistanis" or "South Asians have varying degrees of Caucasoid and other traits".

Also, most likely the early 20th century Supreme Court briefs used "Caucasian race" not "Caucasoid". Probably the SC case should be discussed using the original terms, and we should make it clear our discussion is quoting the terms used at that period, not presenting a current scientific view.

Discussion of the SC case does require "Caucasian", otherwise I would agree any significant discussion of physical anthropology issues should be in the appropriate articles instead of this one.

By the way, there is another edit war on Caucasoid where someone wants to exclude any mention of North Africa. Would appreciate your input there.--JWB 18:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

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

Often true about "whiteness", but "Caucasian" and "Caucasoid" do not have identical definitions, even if the former is a popular synonym for "white". The Supreme Court case is a good example of a formal or scientists' definition of Caucasian conflicting with popular social definitions.--JWB 19:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I will see your garbage and raise you a sarcastic commentary

"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.

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.

• Regarding esthetic appeal — I shall not write an essay on sexual selection because anyone interested can easily look it up. The point is that some of nature's most bizarre and counterintuitive adaptations occur because individuals of one sex come to prefer a peculiar trait in the other sex, then selectively breed with those that carry the trait, thus producing offspring who then carry both genes (preference and trait) in a runaway snowball selection. The traditional examples are the peacock's tail, the deer's antlers and (in this context) the unnecessary protruding mammary glands of the most populous hominid. In short, women with big boobs have a gene that, in baby boys, produces a preference for big boobs and, in girls, produces big boobs. On page 145 of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, and Alberto Piazza, The History and Geography of Human Genes, trans. Sarah Thorne (Princeton: Princeton University, 1994), the world's most famous geneticist concludes that the odd light skin tone of Nordic Europeans is, in fact, due to sexual selection. "Esthetic appeal" may be non-scholarly phrasing, but that is precisely what Cavalli-Sforza's theory boils down to. Just to clarify, by the way, I think that Cavalli-Sforza is mistaken. (You will find my own theory at The Paleo-Etiology of Human Skin Tone.)
• Regarding latitude — of all the populations who live in the far Arctic, north of 55 degrees (Inuit, Saami, Aleuts, Nganasans, Evenks, Sel’kups, Yukagirs, Chukchi, Evens, Koryaks, Nivkhs, and Udegeys) not one is as fair-skinned as Nordic Europeans. All are darker. The light skin of the Nordic Europeans is unique to the region within a few hundred miles of the Baltic Sea and is unrelated to latitude, at least regarding Nordic Europeans. I suggest dropping the latitude theory in this context.
• Regarding relevance — there is already an excellent article on skin tone in Misplaced Pages. Why not simply mention it, link to it, and possibly summarize it rather than trying to express a separate (and untenable) theory. -- FrankWSweet 23:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

pre-20th-century "racial identity" determination

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.

Oh no no no my friend. MUSLIMS are a religion, do not put that in the article. ARABS have much more than a slight African appearance. Yemeni, Egyptians, Southern Iraqis, heck, its pretty big of a chunk. --208.254.174.148 10:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Zaph

FrankWSweet 14:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome, Frank! You demonstrate qualities that all wikipedians should emulate -- common sense, courtesy, good grasp of English, and source material to boot! Wow! I have only one criticism. On first reading of "(Hispanics and Muslims are an exception, not being labeled “Black” despite known but invisible African ancestry.)" made me think you were implying that ALL hispanics and Muslims have invisible African ancestry. Then I thought about it some more in context, and it seems less sweeping, but I'm still not sure I agree. Many hispanics in the US, especially those from the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, and Cuba, are very black in appearance, and I highly doubt that they consider themselves non-black, or that anyone else would do so. I know that many black people living in the arab world are so, er, Arabized that they would never think of themselves as anything other than Arab, but I don't think that stops white people from seeing them as black. Again, these are just my opinions and impressions, and I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say about them. Thanks and welcome again. ThePedanticPrick 16:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I shall reword the sentence to: "(Hispanics and Muslims are an exception, in that those who look utterly European are not labeled Black even though they may admit to having slight African ancestry.)" The question of self-identity versus genetic admixture is interesting. Puerto Ricans are genetically 50-50 Euro-African. Nevertheless, 90 percent check off "White" on the census.FrankWSweet 17:37, 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

Zaph, it would be rude to point out all the ways in which you frequently fail to demonstrate the qualities I mentioned in my welcome of Frank, so I'll just leave it at that. I have complimented you on occasion for your passion and your ability to argue circles around ignorant bigots, so let's move on. I'm not sure what you mean by "where the lines are drawn" and "arab and latino thing..from a white context". Sociology and race studies are not my area of expertise. I have only a middling level of education, and my major was computer science. That's why I mainly contribute spelling and grammar corrections -- as the word "pedantic" in my username implies. Perhaps you could explain further what you're getting at? ThePedanticPrick 18:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me count the ways... one 1000, two 1000, three...Awww, well I guess it's fair, since I never give you fanfare either. I'm being silly about that. Did you know that it is the "if...then" statements and "exception" errors in computer programming, those I base my argumentative tactics on? As in "if ancient egyptians are not black due to their widely varied DNA structure which may include some semetic admixture, then black americans are less black due to their northern european admixture"... "unhandled exception, mtDNA does not flow consistently with skin color, hair texture, and facial morphology, racial conclusion of ancient mediterranean cultures inconsistent with observable information." LOL I'm going to use "exception error" next time I encounter a bigoted arguement. --Zaphnathpaaneah 21:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

==Discussing recent changes by IceMountain==

1. Why the following removed? It is accurate and informative. — "It is somewhat of a misnomer. While the extremes of human skin color range from pink to blue-black, the vast majority of people have a skin color which can be best described as some shade of brown. This include all races and ethnic groups whether they are described as "white", "brown", "black", "red" or "yellow". See Color metaphors for race for more discussion."
2. Why the following removed? It also is accurate and informative. — "Today "white" and "black" are less often used as nouns (e.g. "whites"), as they seem slightly impolite; instead the phrases "white person/people" and "black person/people" are used."

• That's not true, and a non-encyclopedic opinion: "seeming slightly impolite" -- according to whom? It would appear to not be necessary in an encyclopedia article. Also, the terms Whites and Blacks are used millions of times each and every day as nouns by millions of people, but the adjective forms have always been more often used, so why even bring up the noun forms at all (that are still highly used)?Icemountain 22:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

1. According to the note, the following was removed because it is non-encyclopedic, uses dubious sources, and has non-working links. What does "non-encyclopedic" mean? It looks pretty encyclopedic to me. For sources on the premodern use of the term as merely descriptive, rather than classificatory, I recommend: Theodore Allen, The Invention of the White Race, 2 vols. (London: Verso, 1994); Thomas F. Gossett, Race: The History of an Idea in America, New ed. (New York: Oxford University, 1997); Ivan Hannaford, Race: The History of an Idea in the West (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1996); or Audrey Smedley, Race in North America: Origin and Evolution of a Worldview, 2nd ed. (Boulder: Westview, 1999). The one nonworking link goes to copyrighted material (Muse) and so should be removed anyway. The removed text was — "Pre-modern usage of white may not correspond to recent concepts; for example, the first Europeans who traveled to Northeast Asia in the 17th century applied white to the people they encountered - the term having then no other connotations - and indeed, even today the name of the Bai people of Yunnan, China translates as "white"."
2. Why the following removed? It is accurate and informative. — "Still later, when inclusion of Asians and some sections of other groups became useful, the term white has been played down as divisive, and emphasis has shifted to other signifiers like educated, professional, and modern."
3. According to the note, the following was removed because "Chinese are not White for the purposes of this article." This is nonsense. The purpose of this article, as I understand it, is to inform when, where, how, why, and by whom "White" is used to classify people into groups. I would be glad to add a paragraph on how the Chinese-Americans of 1950s Mississippi, for example, were able to join Mississippi’s infamous White citizen’s councils, became members of White churches, were recorded as White on driver’s licenses, and could openly marry members of the White endogamous group. That White Mississippians of the Jim Crow era saw Chinese as White, and would violently defend this—to them—obvious fact of nature is precisely the sort of odd phenomenon that this article is about. The removed text was — "White" as opposed to "Light Skinned" There is considerable controversy as to the difference between "light skinned" as opposed to "white". As mentioned above, the term "white" is a misnomer, as almost all people (regardless of race) have a skin color which is some shade of brown. Thus people who are not white in the traditional sence, but have light skin, such as Japanese, Koreans and Northern Chinese may well be able to legitimately describe themselves as white. It has been noted that light skinned Arabs, North Africans and South Asians have managed to "pass" for white in the West (a few Blacks have been able to as well). In non-western countries, the term white and light-skinned is often used interchangelby."

• "Inclusion of Asians"? Asians are not considered White by the overwhelming majority of White people. How can that be accurate and informative, when it's not true? Icemountain 22:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

1. According to the note, Noel Ignatiev, How the Irish Became White, Routledge, 1996, ISBN 0415918251 was removed because it is anti-White. It is nothing of the sort. It is a straightforward narrative of how Irish Americans fought to be accepted as White and eventually succeeded. Similar scholarly peer-reviewed books are Karen Brodkin, How Jews Became White Folks and What That Says About Race in America (New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University, 1998) and Neil Foley, The White Scourge: Mexicans, Blacks, and Poor Whites in Texas Cotton Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997). The note also says that the book "belongs in controversial whiteness studies." Controversial or not, is that not precisely what this article is about, how people define who is White? -- FrankWSweet 12:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Celtic people are White, and Noel Ignatiev's anti-White, Race Traitor-positions cannot change that. That kind of thinking belongs in controversial whiteness studies. Kindly read back to the earlier discussion on this issue. It is absurd to call Celtic people non-White. Kindly, let's stick to the overall assumption for this article which is that the majority of White people are of European origin, as the Celts are. Therefore, Celts are White and that's just totally common sense. There is an article on Misplaced Pages for whiteness studies, where some of the splitting hairs might be more appropriate. Icemountain 22:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It may well be "absurd to call Celtic people non-White," just as it may be absurd to call Chinese White. But for many decades, millions of Americans did just that. We cannot suppress this knowledge. A NPOV demands that well tell about it. Telling about phenomena does mean that we advocate them. -- FrankWSweet 04:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

"anti-White, Race Traitor-positions"? Yes, thank you for being so explicit about your transparent prejudice. Paul B 01:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Clarification of Race Traitor: The book being discussed was Noel Ignatiev's doctoral dissertation. It is an impeccable study of nineteenth-century Irish assimilation. But today, rather than continue historical research under his former advisor Stephan Thernstrom (editor of the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups), Ignatiev co-edits the magazine Race Traitor: Treason to Whiteness is Loyalty to Humanity, a periodical dedicated to “the abolition of the white race.” Its premier collection features an apologia for Timothy McVeigh. The piece portrays his deliberate murder of 168 people in the Oklahoma City Federal Building as less reprehensible than the U.S. bombing of Iraqi military targets in the Gulf War. (The article claims that the U.S. deliberately targeted women and children whereas McVeigh did not know that the Oklahoma City Building held a daycare center.) In 1997, Ignatiev led a Manhattan conference on abolishing whiteness. According to a reporter who was there, "After an hour of back-and-forth over the insidiousness of white suburbanization and the importance of beating up Nazi skinheads, one participant with baggy pants, chained wallet and a crew cut , ‘All this talk, you know, is good and everything … but I just want to do something. I just feel like tearing some shit up.’ Liberal academic heads nodded in agreement.” My point is that Ignatiev is a total fruitcake and I would gladly cross the street in a driving hailstorm to avoid meeting him on the sidewalk. But we are talking about a book, not the man. Although I suspect that Thernstrom deserves the credit, ratherthan his student, the book is excellent. -- FrankWSweet 03:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Clearly I misunderstood and misrepresented the meaning of the reference. Thank you for pointing that out. I doubt I misunderstood the broad intent of Icemountain's stip-mining edits though. He made some legitimate interventions, but disentangling them from the sheer deletion-frenzy was not worth the effort.

My own alterations to the "Aryan" section were intended to correct the Indocentric bias of the earlier version. The term was never exclusively used of Vedic peoples or 'South Asians', nor is it likely to have originated with them. It cannot reasonably be said that Houston Stewart Chamberlain wrote a "falsified pseudo-history of India". "Falsified" implies deliberate deception. There's no reason to doubt that Chamberlain believed what he wrote to be true. In any case, he has relatively little to say about India in his most important book. The usage of Aryan in its "Nazi" sense was also well-established long before Nazism itself. Paul B 05:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Paul, reverting without reading and comprehending is not assuming good faith. Thank you to FrankWSweet for explaining Noel Ignatiev's White-hatred and anti-White views. His summary above is accurate, and people should not prejudge Ignatiev to be a fair or unbiased academian.Icemountain 14:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Icemountain, your comment is both false and illogical. As I said, I read your edits. Misunderstanding a specific reference has nothing to do with not "assuming good faith". We are all liable to misunderstand any specific comment. Your own remarks above are an example. I certainly do not assume that Ignatiev or any ohter writer is "a fair or unbiassed academian (sic)". The central problem with your edits was that they were in large part deletions of content that provided valuable information about the historical complexities and ambiguities of racial classification. That information is useful to readers. On Ignatiev, I have only just begun looking at his views, but I agree that the definition of "white" as near-interchanagable with "accepted group" is more than problematic. Paul B 15:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I should also stress that I am not in any sense in "support" Frank Sweet's edits, which I also think contain misleading elements, which overly tend to stress the apparent arbitrariness of the term "white". I strongly doubt the claim that Celtic peoples were ever widely regarded as non-White. It's certainly inconsistent with my own reading of 19th century race-theories. The inferiority of Celts to "Saxons" was certainly argued by some, and likewise contested by others. But saying that Celts, or more specific groups such as the west-Irish, are inferior is not the same as saying that they were widely perceived as non white. However, I cannot deny that I trust him rather more than someone who adds a link to "www.white-history.com". Paul B 15:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• I cannot deny that likewise trust people rather more than someone who supports including links on this article from anti-White racists like Noel Ingatiev.Icemountain 18:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding, "Thank you," you're welcome, but do not lose sight of my point. Despite the man's later descent into silliness, his earlier dissertation was an excellent narrative of how the mid-19th-century Irish fought tenaciously to be accepted as White, and eventually succeeded like the Germans before them and the Italians after them. -- FrankWSweet 15:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Do Middle Easterners resemble Northern and Southern Europeans?

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)

Gramaic, I really don't think Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages encyclopedia article where it is just not appropriate or necessary. Misplaced Pages 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)

Of course it is a place to "debate a controversial issue", or rather, more accurately, to summarise and explain debates on a controversial issue. Anyway, there's nothing controversial about the claim that some N. Africans look very like southern Europeans - which is none to surprising when you consider geography and history. The only "slippery slope" is the one that exists in your mind. Paul B 16:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Paul, Misplaced Pages 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)

It's not about what I think or you think. We don't need a poll to tell us that numerous writers from Ripley (1899) and before have included large parts of the N African population in the category "Caucasian". Sergi (1901) even claimed that N. Africans and southern Europeans constituted a united "Medierranean race" which was "the greatest race in the world". In contrast, the Aryan/Semitic model allowed for a separation between N. Africans and S. Europeans, on the grounds that the former were "Semiticised" (Gobineau). But the Nordicist model could also be used to partially exclude southern Europeans along with N. Africans, on the grounds that they were "mixed"... etc, etc. When we add the religio-cultural differences into the mix then things get even more complex. The term "white" can be and has been used in ways that slip between or merge with these various models. That is a fact of history. However, we have to express this concisely and clearly, but as completely as we can. Paul B 17:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes Icemountain, Misplaced Pages 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)

While we're at it, maybe we could mention that when a person is either ignorant or extremely prejudiced, they are unable to see the resemblances between themselves and those who are not members of their imaginary race. I don't think we'd have to look very far to find some examples of this phenomenon to cite. By the way, some scientists recently isolated the gene that makes humans white. We're mutants, the black people are normal! Isn't that cool?! I wonder if I can get mine mutated back--I'm sick of having to go the tanning salon. ThePedanticPrick 19:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

No, black people are mutants too. We all are. It's called evolution. Paul B 13:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I'll be the first to admit that my sense of humor is a bit weird when I'm hungover. ThePedanticPrick 15:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The Epistemological Challenge

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

Who is White?

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)

I think that this question would get more answers (and more experienced answers) if posted to a discussion group for multiracial individuals. Email me privately at fwsweet@backintyme.com if you would like me to suggest one or two. -- Frank W Sweet 03:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Icemountain's changes of 14 December 2005

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."

I cannot grasp why a link to a White-supremacist website adds to the educational/informative value of this article. I am willing to be persuaded that this is useful but, so far, IceMountain has made no effort to persuade anyone. He just keeps putting the link back.

• Frank, there is plenty of accurate and vetted historical information summed up on that link. If you can provide another link that summarizes the history of White people, that'd be great too. Your characterization of that link is quite unfair. Icemountain 16:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

>>Unfair or not, your are going to have to be specific as to what information from that site is important to this article, but cannot be included in the body of the article. -- Frank W Sweet 17:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Frank, 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)

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.

The first two are informative and important to the topic. The third is necessary to back up the otherwise unsupported assertion of the prior sentence. ("In the New World today, however, the White/non-White distinction is cultural, not genetic.")

Revision as of 21:22, 14 December 2005: removed, " In the New World today, however, the White/non-White distinction is cultural, not genetic."

Important and informative to the topic.

• Frank, that statement above " In the New World today, however, the White/non-White distinction is cultural, not genetic." is outrageous POV.Icemountain 17:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

>>Be specific and I shall pay attention. Merely saying that you think a piece of verifiable data is "outrageous" carries no weight. -- Frank W Sweet 17:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• "Chinese and Japanese may legitimately describe themselves as White"? What does this even mean? First, you place text in the article saying everyone is some shade of brown, so now you want use the color white to describe Asians? It's not really clear, and it's just misleading and unecessary. Even if we assume everyone is brown in color, then the cultural definition of White comes into play, and Asians, especially Japanese and Chinese are not considered White. I also don't really see what the point is to find one or two isolated examples of when the Chinese were included in the White category (in Mississippi or whatever), because we all know this is not common sense and even the Chinese themselves don't think they are Whites and vice-versa. Please, Frank can we focus more on what White means (for the reader) rather than on all the exceptions and controversies involved?Icemountain 16:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

>>No we cannot. The goal of this article is not to reify your personal conviction about who is (or is not) White. There is no common-sense consensus on this. That is precisely the point of this article. This article should explain when, where, how, and why certain people see/saw other people as White (or not). The NPOV cannot, must not, take sides that one person's perception was or is better or more correct than any other person's. -- Frank W Sweet 17:54, 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)

• • Just who's literature would that be? Here are two well-known men wearing Western style suits: Are you saying the suit makes the two men the same?Icemountain 16:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I doubt you've ever been to spain, but I have, and the moroccan king could easily pass for a southern spaniard. Not that would make a damn bit of difference to you, since your favorite Web-site--hateful-white-bigotry masquerading as history.com--claims that the spanish empire fell because they interbred with black slaves, a ludicrous and untrue notion, but then again, bigots never give a rat's ass about the truth. ThePedanticPrick 18:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop ad hominems TPP. I have been to Spain. That you believe that the Moroccan king could pass for a Spaniard is only your personal opinion, so why should that make it encyclopedic? I also believe that a Moroccan can indenfity a Spaniard easily. Do you think the Spaniard PM can pass for Moroccan? I doubt the Spaniards/Moroccans would have as much trouble indentifying who and who isn't their own countymen as you are seeming to have. Why were the reconquest wars even fought then? Icemountain 18:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I do believe he could pass for moroccan. I once met a moroccan girl at a bar in Granada whose skin was lighter than Zapatero's and had a nose a bit like Aznar's. I didn't know she was moroccan until she told me. Mmmmmmmm! PS. The reconquista was fought because Christians don't like muslims. Shheeesh, are you so bigoted that you don't realize there are other forms of bigotry? ThePedanticPrick 19:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

No kidding? We lived in Madrid from 1969-1972, when I worked for IBM there and in Valencia. We spent a two-week vacation in Morocco around Christmastime one year (Marrakesh, Fez, Casablanca, etc.). We never met the king, though. <grin> When/why were you there? -- Frank W Sweet 18:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I studied there for about three months in college. Loved every minute of it! ThePedanticPrick 19:45, 17 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)

>>The best current studies on the perception of "racial" traits are: Robert Kurzban, John Tooby, and Leda Cosmides, “Can Race be Erased? Coalitional Computation and Social Categorization,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98, no. 26 (2001): 15387-15392; Robert Owen Kurzban, “The Social Psychophysics of Cooperation in Groups” (Ph.D., University of California, 1998); and Lola Cosmides, John Tooby, and Robert Kurzban, “Perceptions of Race,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7, no. 4 (2003): 173-79. Again, I understand that your own perceptions are tenaciously held and important to you. Nevertheless, this article cannot assume that your perceptions of who is "really White" are correct and mine are wrong (or vice-versa). We must rely on factual data that explains when, where, how, and why these perceptions are formed and expressed. Pleas read the literature. Better yet, just google the above names and I am sure you will turn up popularizations of current studies. If you want to question their methodology, findings, or conclusions, I will pay attention. By simple insisting over and over that your perceptions are unalterable carries no weight. -- Frank W Sweet 17:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Your examples are the exception rather than the rule, and that's all I see you putting into the article. My perceptions are not however as "tenacious" as someone who devotes their career to studying the subject. The justification for my edits is based on the principle of NPOV and requiring valid and non-biased sources. Kindly discuss the edits and refrain from ad hominems. Thanks.Icemountain 18:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

>>Along those lines, I notice that you are once again posting a series of changes to the article without either taking into account previous discussions nor explaining your changes in this venue. This is despite the instructions at the top of this page. Your actions are beginning to smell more and more like vandalism, virtually guaranteeing that your changes will be reverted as soon as you finish. -- Frank W Sweet 17:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Frank, every edit has been justified. It is most definitely not vandalism. Please stop ad hominems and refer to the edit itself. I would be glad to discuss any and all of my edits with you.Icemountain

15 Dec 2005, Icemountain / FrankWSweet Debate

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)

I agree that we could include more history. The problem is that you want a history of White people and I want a history of who, when, where, how, and why certain people saw certain other people as White. I oppose writing a history of White people because this leads to debate over who is White and who is not, and there is no way to resolve this. And so, I opt for a balanced set of statements on how different people see the whiteness of others.

I suggest that we take just one of your changes at a time, rather than your applying multiple changes at once. Take just one change and let's discuss it. -- Frank W Sweet 23:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Icemountain wrote: 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)

Okay. This is a good example of a single point that we can look it. I did not mean to include the United States in the first part of the sentence, since U.S. culture is extremely racialist in ascribing ethnic differences to genes. I would be willing to split it into three sentences, perhaps like this: I would be happy to provide sources for Latin American admixture studies. -- Frank W Sweet 23:47, 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)

Again, let us talk about a single point rather than generalities. The problem is that what White means in 2005 to a Puerto Rican (90% of whom check off White on the census) or to a sensei from San Francisco, or to a Vietnamese shrimper in New Orleans are all just as valid as your idea of what White means. (To say nothing of the opinions of Azerbaijanis or Khazaks overseas.) You claim that your perception of who is White is "widely accepted" and imply that those who disagree are exceptions. I see no evidence of this and a great deal of evidence to the contrary. There are many understandings of what White means and they are all as valid as yours. Again, let us discuss just one specific point at a time. -- Frank W Sweet 23:47, 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)

No, of course I am not saying that. Fez came up only because you and someone else were debating whether Moroccans "look White." I merely pointed out that any given Moroccan may look White (or not) to the person you were talking to, he or she may look White (or not) to you, and he or she may look White (or not) to themselves. My point was that none of these opinions is better than anyone else's and so debating them is a waste of time. What is important is not whether Moroccans are "really White" because there is no way of resolving the issue. Neither is it important whether they "look White" because, again, there is no way of resolving this. What is important is whether they are considered White by themselves or by Algerians, Spaniards, or Maltese. Again, the goal is to explain who, when, where, how, and why some people see others as White. We at least have a shot at resolving that. Again, pick just one change that you want to make and let us discuss it. -- Frank W Sweet 23:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverted unexplained changes by Gramaic

The major change made by Gramaic at 22:58, 15 December 2005 was from this:

Another difficulty with the term is the difference between any given popular definition versus the parameters used for the official government definition in the same locale. For example, some claim that many Americans consider Arabs, Berbers, Iranians, Mizrahi Jews, Kurds, Armenians, Turks, etc. to be non-white. U.S. federal agencies, on the other hand, make no such distinction. The EEOC defines only five "races" (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian) and explicitly defines "White as "peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East." (See Employer Information Report EEO-1 and Standard Form 100, Appendix § 4, Race/Ethnic Identification, 1 Empl. Prac. Guide (CCH) § 1881, (1981), 1625.) And Census Bureau classifications are completely voluntary by each reporting individual. Given the explicit EEOC definition and the volutary nature of the census, it seems likely that most U.S. voters would agree that North Africans and Middle Easterners are White. This was not always the case. Until the 1960s, the U.S. restricted immigration and naturalization depending upon whether an immigrant was White, and U.S. courts waffled back and forth many times when considering whether non-Europeans were White. (See United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind.)

to this:

Another contemporary difficulty of the term is the difference between any given popular definition versus the parameters used for the official government definition in the same locale. In the United States for example, many view Arabs, Berbers, Iranians, Mizrahi Jews, Kurds, Armenians, Turks, etc. as non-white. This is despite the fact that for the purposes of statistics, all the aforementioned are always categorised as white by US government agencies and the U.S. census, and even though some of the people in these groups may look very similar to Southern Europeans.

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)

I just like to know, why is the statement regarding Middle Easterners looking like Europeans constantly being removed? Icemountain is constantly removing that sentence, and has stated "that it is not accurate." Actually many Middle Easterners look like Southern Europeans, and minority resemble even the Northern Europeans. Obviously Icemountain does not have experience with Middle Easterners, stating in his summary that this reference about people of Middle Eastern backround is "misleading and not accurate." I'm not trying to start another "Who is White?" discussion, but what exactly is POV about that statement? On the contrary, denying that there aren't any European looking Middle Easterners and North Africans is the one that is highly POV and biased. --Gramaic | Talk 03:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Gramaic, please stop making prejudicial comments and ad hominems. I know Middle Easterners, and the vast majority do not consider themselves White. Can you kindly stop pushing this POV when it just doesn't hold up to scrutiny? Go visit the Middle East, or visit any Middle East retail neighborhood of a large US city. Icemountain 18:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'v been to the Middle East and have been to Middle Eastern stores and retailers and I'm very familiar with Middle Easterners, so don't tell me what Middle Easterners are Icemountain. Whether you consider Middle Easterners white or not doesn't mean you have to deny that there are European looking Middle Easterners. I'm not the one making prejudicial comments, you are. This is not going to be another "Who is White?" discussion, and were not going to deny that thre are Middle Easterners who resemble Europeans, just because it offends some prejudice individuals. As for your accusastions of me pushing a POV, it is you who is doing that, by denying that there aren't any European looking people from the Middle East. --Gramaic | Talk 23:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. This was probably my doing. Until the 14 Dec 2005 round of changes/reversions, it was Icemountain who kept removing it, for the reason that you just said. But in the 14 Dec 2005 round of changes/reversions, I am the one who left it out. The reason that I left it out, as I tried to explain above, had nothing to do with POV. I left it out because it just struck me that whether anyone "looks white" or not depends on who is doing the looking. To me, almost all Middle Easterners look White and I have spent quite a bit of time there (in fact, my wife went to highschool in Teheran). But Icemountain claims that they do not look White to him. Maybe he is sincere. if so, there is no way that he will ever be convinced to the contrary. My father-in-law used to insist that Italians did not look White to him, and I finally gave up trying to argue with him. And so, I left out the business about middle-easterners and north africans looking white because it seemed to be a source of pointless debate that ultimately could not be resolved. If you feel strongly about it, put it back in. I shall back off and let you and Icemountain fight it out. (I would prefer, however, if you could phrase it in some way that leaves wiggle-room for people like my father-in-law (and Icemountain) who honestly see non-Whiteness where others see Whiteness. -- Frank W Sweet 04:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Be wary of anthropolgical revisionist politics at Misplaced Pages

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Unfortuately, 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.

Well, isn't that nice! You come barging into a discussion that was bordering on uncivilized already and inject politics into the debate! Thanks a lot! Would you give steroids to a raging bull, too? I'm not going to waste my time explaining to you why thinking critically about the prejudices one is raised with is not exclusively the province of lefty liberals, but perhaps when you start thinking for yourself and doing a little bit of reading, we can talk. Question everything. Toodle-oo ThePedanticPrick 12:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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. Misplaced Pages 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)

What do you mean, let the man speak. He spoke, no one deleted his position. In addition, his speech was nothing more than a desire to censure "left" and "liberal" views. So tell him to let US speak. But look at what you yourself say. Whitness is proud to be white because of all things... genetics??? What other group of people do YOU know of that stress some genetic "reason" to be who they are? In addition, how can whiteness be inclusive, if one of the things that gives it pride is a genetic makeup? the others who are inclusive further diversify the genetic pool making "genetics" less and less of a clear distinction! Arabs, East Indians, Latinos, (people who are considered to be white in some fashion or another) are radically different from Germans. And you think this is not exclusive, well explain these comments by white judges and politicians who based "whiteness" on concepts of "purity" and "virtue", with virtue being nothing more than a "fair contenance" and a "radiant comlpexion"! Europeans did not categorize themselves as white when they first settled in Virginia. Now if you do not want to address the history of how whiteness was invented and where and why it "grew" to include this group or that group, thats going to be a problem. This article is about white people, so their history and origins should be clearly laid out, good and bad. We aren't going to make assumptions, and omit information based on a belief in bygone conclusions. And yea the man spoke, but he didn't show any kind of serious thinking. He wants anything he doesnt like to be thrown into the trash. He may be "white" but that does not make him the final expert on all things white. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

And be aware of unilateral attempts to dominate and control Misplaced Pages

This left-liberal accusation made by the anonymous poster in the previous section is in actuality another "pre-emptive" atttempt to dominate the direction Misplaced Pages is going. I agree that Misplaced Pages 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.

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 Misplaced Pages to unilaterally control the way the content is presented. Once Misplaced Pages 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. 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. YThey 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)

"most laymen would never be able to distinguish an ancient Irish statue from an ancient Greek statue." Really? You don't know much about the history of art do you? Have you seen any ancient Irish art? But seriously, pop over to the talk:Akhenaten or Tutankhamon page to see how contributors would very much dispute the "you can tell from a statue" line. Paul B 07:57, 20 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.

Well that was a spectacularly brainless reply. ANY layman could tell the difference between ancient Irish and Greek art, but if you had any sense you'd have spotted that that was just a light comment, the central point being that even realistic images often can't be readily placed. The statue of liberty, by the way, is an imitation of ancient Greek scuptural conventions, to which highly idiosyncratic stylised elements have been added. Here's a reproducion of the face from the museum. As you can see it doesn't actually resemble any specific human race. Have you ever seen anyone with a nose like that? It is certainly not "readily recognisable as a Caucasian woman". It just goes to show, sometimes you see what you want to see.

"Whiteness studies" seems to be a semi-imaginary demon you and your pals have constructed, to which you attribute the view that race is an arbitrary construct. Drawing attention to the fact that "white" is not a clear or stable concept is not the same as saying that it is completely arbitrary. However, it is important to point that "rules" such as the designation of someone half African and half European as "black" rather than "white" are arbitrary - or rather they are historically constructed. Paul B 01:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

YOu guys can't even decide what "race" is. 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. 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. 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.

Should a new article be created, and this content be merged or moved to Whiteness Studies?

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

Nicely done, zaph. Would that all your arguments were this concise, structured, and dispassionate. ThePedanticPrick 21:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well Pedantic - imagine that someone responds later that White people are a Christian ethnic group because of some research done by some goofball, and the term "Christian" is more of a racial term than a religious one. Then you will see passion, chaos, and confusion. :) Lets see what happens.--68.60.55.162 22:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd expect nothing less, dude, but can we point and laugh, too? ThePedanticPrick 22:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Methinks they doth protest too much

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;)

Oh how the tables have turned

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)

White as ethnicity

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)