Main Entry: Cau??ca??sian Pronunciation: 'ko-'kA-zh&n, -'kazh-&n
1 : of or relating to the white race of humankind as classified according to physical features
2 : of or relating to the white race as defined by law specifically as composed of persons of European, No. African, or southwest Asian ancestry ???Caucasian noun
So someone managed to find a semantic difference between Caucasion and White.
i cant believe in 2007 i still see and hear whiteys calling themselves Caucasian. It just reflect how many books you read on the subject. Or which book you read on the subject... Anyway, anyhow, let it be kown Mr White, that when you post such things :
In the last 10,000 years Caucasions have been submitted to all of the same atrocities that any other race has
You should be banned in my book...i know it's a mission for the civilzed to teach the uncivilized. But see, i dont know if it's because i'm getting older or because i'm getting fed up with it, but i'm tired of showing the light when people still wear stunnas shades. YOU CANT SEE SHIT MAN. Your post is disrespectful to entire communities, but you can't FEEL that. It's disrespectful for the few historians and scholars that spent thier whole life fighting stereotypes and falses statements. Just that sadden me.
I could left it at that, but then i read that, and guess what, it was still from the same guy...
No caucasions have ever been enslaved
Oh man-o-man...NEXT TIME I SEE A WHITE GUY TALKING ABOUT WHITE SLAVERY, i swear i put this board on blast and you will ban me, for sure, but you will also remember me. You mother son of a bitch, rock, why do i always have to stumble across this kind of white people that you represent. Why do you hang here, you uneducated bastard. Why all you fools haven't been locked up in a psycho ward yet??? Why don't we find a brainpatch for sillydumbstupid mofocker like you. I hope you will have a painful living and a load of bad experiences. At least 7 years of complete unhappiness and bitterness. And at the same time, i pray for you since you are still young. I pray that you will meet someone or end up ina situation that will open your eyes and release the beast within you.
shut the fuck up white boy...(sorry for that horribly poor line, but that's all i can think of at that point). Just put me on ignore. I wont comment on anything you ever post again. Do the same for me.
shut the fuck up white boy...(sorry for that horribly poor line, but that's all i can think of at that point). Just put me on ignore. I wont comment on anything you ever post again. Do the same for me.
Although I got the impression it was a disparaging term, I didn't think it was a racist thing. Am I wrong?
It's a put-down either way, and obviously the majority of the world doesn't know what it means unless it's brought up. Of course, I *did* bring is up, so it's my fault, really.
(I know your username wasn't a reference to the meaning I know of, BTW.)
Main Entry: Cau??ca??sian Pronunciation: 'ko-'kA-zh&n, -'kazh-&n
1 : of or relating to the white race of humankind as classified according to physical features
2 : of or relating to the white race as defined by law specifically as composed of persons of European, No. African, or southwest Asian ancestry ???Caucasian noun
So someone managed to find a semantic difference between Caucasion and White.
I'm impressed.
Rock,
You need a better dictionary:
Cau??ca??sian adj 1. belonging to the light-skinned peoples of Europe, North Africa, western Asia, and India,[/b] formerly considered as a distinct ethnic group (no longer in technical use) 2. relating to people who are white or of European origin 3. belonging to or from Caucasia 4. belonging or relating to either of two unrelated languages spoken in the area around the Caucasus Mountains
n 1. a member of the former Caucasian ethnic group (no longer in technical use) 2. somebody white or of European origin 3. somebody who lives in or comes from Caucasia 4. either of two unrelated language families spoken in the area around the Caucasus Mountains, Kartvelian or South Caucasian, and North Caucasian
Encarta?? World English Dictionary ?? 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
Caucasians include English, Germans, Persians, Arabs, Turks, Afghans, Indian - Asians, Pakistanis.
And in court cases in the United States they decided that there were differences between Caucasian and white.
There was a court case in California in the early 1900s when an Asian Indian sued over being segregated. The Indian guy proved in court that Indians were Caucasian, but in the ruling against him, the court found that while that was true, there was no way that Indians could be considered "white", and therefore he could be legally segregated.
As I said in another post, race is a social construct, not something based upon science. At the beginning of America, "white" was a very exclusive group of people, namey WASPs (White Angle Saxon Protestants) = English only. Germans were not even considered "white" very early in American history, but were later accepted. Irish were not considered white at first because they were Catholics and there were all kinds of negative stereotypes the English had about them being poor, stupid, drunks, etc. In California during the Great Depression when poor whites from the Midwest hit by the Dust Bowl came to the state, commonly called Oakies, they were not considered white either even though they were WASPs. People in California argued that they were "too poor to be white." Italians and Portuguese were not considered white until after WWII because there were Catholics and the stereotypes of having "dark skin."
So if race is based upon science, phsyical characteristics, etc. please explain how being Caucasian, Catholic, poor, etc. excludes you from the "white race"
There are a lot of good books on the changing meaning of white and race in America.
I just looked up that court case with the Asian Indian and I was wrong about what it was about. Instead of suing about segregation, he was suing about U.S. immigration law that excluded Asian Indians from citizenship.
Here???s an excerpt from Ronald Takaki???s - Strangers From A Different Shore. Any typos are mine.
???After the enactment of the 1917 ???barred zone??? law, the question of the political status of Asian Indians already in the United States still remained. The federal law of 1790 had reserved naturalized citizenship to ???whites??? only, providing the basis for excluding Chinese, Japanese, and Korean immigrants from citizenship. But Asian Indians were Caucasian. Would they be entitled to naturalized citizenship in the United States? Seeking to set forth a distinction between Asian Indians and white Americans, the Asiatic Exclusion League conceded in 1910 that students of ethnology all agreed ???the Hindus??? were ???members of the same family??? as Americans of European ancestry. But, ???as a matter of fact,??? the league argued, the people of the United States were ???cousins, far removed, of the Hindus of the northwest provinces.??? The ???forefathers??? of white Americans ???pressed to the west, in the everlasting march of conquest, progress, and civilization,??? while the ???forefathers of the Hindus went east and became enslaved, effeminate, caste-ridden and degraded.??? The Western Aryans became the ???Lords of Creation,??? while the Eastern Aryans became the ???slaves of Creation.??? ???And now we the people of the United States are asked to receive these members of a degraded race on terms of equality,??? the league protested. What would be the condition of California if they were allowed to become citizens and if ???this horde of fanatics should be received in our midst????
Asked about Asian-Indian eligibility for citizenship, the U.S. Attorney General Charles J. Bonaparte replied in 1907: ???It seems to me clear that under no construction of the law can natives of British Indian be regarded as white persons.??? But the question had to be determined in the courts. In the 1910 U.S. v Balsara and the 1913 Aikoy Kumar Mazumdar decisions, the courts held that Asian Indians were Caucasians and hence entitled to be considered ???white persons??? eligible to citizenship under the 1790 law. In the 1922 Ozawa decision, the Supreme Court declared that ???white persons??? was synonymous with Caucasian[/b] and therefore that Japanese immigrants were not eligible to naturalized citizenship. Asian Indians thought that the Ozawa case had reinforced their status as Caucasians and their own claim for naturalized citizenship.
But in 1923, their expectations were shattered: in U.S. v. Bhagat Singh Thind, the Supreme Court ruled that Asian Indians were ineligible to naturalization. Arguing that the definition of race had to be based up the ???understanding of the common man,??? the Court held that the term ???white person??? meant an immigrant from northern or western Europe. For the ???practical purposes??? of the stature, the term ???race??? must be applied to ???a group of living persons now possessing in common the requisite characteristics.??? ???It may be true,??? the Court declared, ???the the blond Scandinavian and the brown Hindu have a common ancestor in the dim reaches of antiquity, but the average man knows perfectly well that there are unmistakable and profound differences between them today.??? The law ???does not employ the word ???Caucasian??? but the words ???white persons,?????? the Court explained, ???and these words of common speech and not scientific origin. The word ???Caucasian??? not only was not employed in the law but was probably wholly unfamiliar to the original framers of the stature in 1790.??? Thus Asian Indians, while they were ???Caucasian,??? were not ???white.???[/b] The intention of the Founding Fathers was to ???confer the privilege of citizenship upon the class of persons??? they knew as ???white.??????
But one can surely distinguish indian from afro-amrican, spanish and Dutch and chinese can we? OK. every country ever has had suppressed their own people in some way or another. But supressors always respected the suppressed in a way. Going to a wole other country and dominating another race simply by distinguisihing on characteristics. Thats racism. Thats beyond bold. They used people that were planned never to get a piece of new haven.
I heard someone say this I dunno if its true. Africa is laaaarge. Within africa, in fact (fact?) it were different countries that enslaved other african countries and sold *them* to the europeans that brought them to the US. Is that true? Or just a mere story to wash their hands in? I never heard of this before...
But one can surely distinguish indian from afro-amrican, spanish and Dutch and chinese can we? OK. every country ever has had suppressed their own people in some way or another. But supressors always respected the suppressed in a way. Going to a wole other country and dominating another race simply by distinguisihing on characteristics. Thats racism. Thats beyond bold. They used people that were planned never to get a piece of new haven.
I heard someone say this I dunno if its true. Africa is laaaarge. Within africa, in fact (fact?) it were different countries that enslaved other african countries and sold *them* to the europeans that brought them to the US. Is that true? Or just a mere story to wash their hands in? I never heard of this before...
Europeans established slave trading posts along the coast of Africa and never really went that much in land until they colonized the place in the late-1800s. Almost all of the slave trading was done by other African tribes that would capture people and then trade them to the Europeans for goods. The Africans than got shipped to the Americas - U.S., Caribbean, Souther America.
As I said in another post, race is a social construct, not something based upon science. At the beginning of America, "white" was a very exclusive group of people, namey WASPs (White Angle Saxon Protestants) = English only. Germans were not even considered "white" very early in American history, but were later accepted. Irish were not considered white at first because they were Catholics and there were all kinds of negative stereotypes the English had about them being poor, stupid, drunks, etc. In California during the Great Depression when poor whites from the Midwest hit by the Dust Bowl came to the state, commonly called Oakies, they were not considered white either even though they were WASPs. People in California argued that they were "too poor to be white." Italians and Portuguese were not considered white until after WWII because there were Catholics and the stereotypes of having "dark skin."
So if race is based upon science, phsyical characteristics, etc. please explain how being Caucasian, Catholic, poor, etc. excludes you from the "white race"
I agree with what you're saying about race being used as a 'social construct'. In England we are more hung up about class, than race. You could change the names but say pretty much the same thing, as you wrote above, about the various class divides in the UK. It's the same divides, but on different lines.
But away from America, were the natives of Ireland, Britain, Italy, Germany etc not white, even though they were not being classified along the same line as their American counterparts. Is the use of white in the sentence "Germans were not even considered "white" very early in American history" really just the bastardisation of the British class system, into somewhere it can no longer exist, so class gets a new definition.
When the Europeans (Portuguese, Dutch, French and British), not just the English, decided that they were superior to the black Africans, so they could justify slavery to themselves. Did they not draw a line there, that they (Europeans) were 'white' and superior.
are you sure....arent there though 3 different skull types...anthropologically speaking?
Negroid Mongloid and Caucasoid...I might be wrong, but I thought that was the case...
just for the record...if I was having a discussion about, well anything really, and someone said "shut the fuck up white boy", I would use that as justification as just walking away and ignoring the individual who said it...I dont think you can do much persuasion or convincing after a phrase like that...
Race discussions on this board ARE always comedy...well, for one, there is always one party or one individual that thinks they know ALL the answers and thinks that another group or individual is outta their fucking minds...there is disrespect for the ideas ON both sides of the argument... and speaking of both sides, it is comedy that race discussions always get broken down to just 2 sides on here..the world isnt black and white(metaphorically speaking of course).
are you sure....arent there though 3 different skull types...anthropologically speaking?
Negroid Mongloid and Caucasoid...I might be wrong, but I thought that was the case...
There is a fairly substantial body of studies on the topic of the validity of "race" as a legitimate genetic concept. Personally, I've certainly heard the argument that "race" is a social construct far more often than the biological argument, but that could simply be due to the fact that that is the en vogue argument at the moment.
I encourage all to read up on their read-ups. This is only a Wikipedia article on "race" research, but there are a bevy of research articles cited and many are linked.
are you sure....arent there though 3 different skull types...anthropologically speaking?
Negroid Mongloid and Caucasoid...I might be wrong, but I thought that was the case...
There is a fairly substantial body of studies on the topic of the validity of "race" as a legitimate genetic concept. Personally, I've certainly heard the argument that "race" is a social construct far more often than the biological argument, but that could simply be due to the fact that that is the en vogue argument at the moment.
I encourage all to read up on their read-ups. This is only a Wikipedia article on "race" research, but there are a bevy of research articles cited and many are linked.
Edify thyself.
Well, I think we're fairly past the point of debate--it's been established for a long time that "race" doesn't reflect biological reality.
Sure, some people have different physical traits from other people, and I think maybe the folks having trouble swallowing the idea that "race isn't real" are misreading it as a suggestion that the physical differences don't exist.
They do--but the attachment of significance to certain combinations of physical traits as forming a "race" is what's arbitrary; "black," "white," "asian," etc. are social constructs--these categories don't represent any sort of scientific truth, and there are an infinite number of alternative systems of categorization based on physical traits that you could come up with.
Well, I think we're fairly past the point of debate--it's been established for a long time that "race" doesn't reflect biological reality.
Sure, some people have different physical traits from other people, and I think maybe the folks having trouble swallowing the idea that "race isn't real" are misreading it as a suggestion that the physical differences don't exist.
They do--but the attachment of significance to certain combinations of physical traits as forming a "race" is what's arbitrary; "black," "white," "asian," etc. are social constructs--these categories don't represent any sort of scientific truth, and there are an infinite number of alternative systems of categorization based on physical traits that you could come up with.
Sounds like you're a supporter of "cline" theory:
"One of the crucial innovations in reconceptualizing genotypic and phenotypic variation[/b] was anthropologist C. Loring Brace's observation that such variations, insofar as it is affected by natural selection, migration, or genetic drift, are distributed along geographic gradations; these gradations are called "clines"[/b] (Brace 1964). This point called attention to a problem common to phenotypic-based descriptions of races (for example, those based on hair texture and skin color): they ignore a host of other similarities and difference (for example, blood type) that do not correlate highly with the markers for race.[/b] Thus, anthropologist Frank Livingstone's conclusion that, since clines cross racial boundaries, "there are no races, only clines" (Livingstone 1962: 279). In 1964, biologists Paul Ehrlich and Holm pointed out cases where two or more clines are distributed discordantly???for example, melanin is distributed in a decreasing pattern from the equator north and south; frequencies for the haplotype for beta-S hemoglobin, on the other hand, radiate out of specific geographical points in Africa (Ehrlich and Holm 1964)."
Well, I think we're fairly past the point of debate--it's been established for a long time that "race" doesn't reflect biological reality.
Sure, some people have different physical traits from other people, and I think maybe the folks having trouble swallowing the idea that "race isn't real" are misreading it as a suggestion that the physical differences don't exist.
They do--but the attachment of significance to certain combinations of physical traits as forming a "race" is what's arbitrary; "black," "white," "asian," etc. are social constructs--these categories don't represent any sort of scientific truth, and there are an infinite number of alternative systems of categorization based on physical traits that you could come up with.
Sounds like you're a supporter of "cline" theory:
"One of the crucial innovations in reconceptualizing genotypic and phenotypic variation[/b] was anthropologist C. Loring Brace's observation that such variations, insofar as it is affected by natural selection, migration, or genetic drift, are distributed along geographic gradations; these gradations are called "clines"[/b] (Brace 1964). This point called attention to a problem common to phenotypic-based descriptions of races (for example, those based on hair texture and skin color): they ignore a host of other similarities and difference (for example, blood type) that do not correlate highly with the markers for race.[/b] Thus, anthropologist Frank Livingstone's conclusion that, since clines cross racial boundaries, "there are no races, only clines" (Livingstone 1962: 279). In 1964, biologists Paul Ehrlich and Holm pointed out cases where two or more clines are distributed discordantly???for example, melanin is distributed in a decreasing pattern from the equator north and south; frequencies for the haplotype for beta-S hemoglobin, on the other hand, radiate out of specific geographical points in Africa (Ehrlich and Holm 1964)."
Pretty much, but I would stress that people understand the way "theory" is being used--it's an explanatory model that can never be "proven" and the use of the word doesn't hint at it being dubious. The theory emerged at the beginning of the last century when we didn't have access to, say, genetic data that could substantiate it, but as the amount of information available to us has increased, the theory has only been strengthened. It is not a "theory" in the same sense that my various musings on the origins of SoulStrut littledudism are and a worldview in which black/white/asian reflect biological truth is certainly not a "theory" of comparable validity.
Comments
but seriously
Pronunciation: 'ko-'kA-zh&n, -'kazh-&n
1 : of or relating to the white race of humankind as classified according to physical features
2 : of or relating to the white race as defined by law specifically as composed of persons of European, No. African, or southwest Asian ancestry ???Caucasian noun
So someone managed to find a semantic difference between Caucasion and White.
I'm impressed.
I suggest we begin to circulate the term "Parker Lewis."
chad : this is what we called most stanford kids... like breakself
"Your bitch chose a pimp/And that pimp was Chad."
dude went to stanfurd? like really?
hes going to school there now. said hed be living in the bay for the next 5yrs.
You seem impressed, Chad.
Here's a hint for when you go back for that JSD/LLM: you don't get there by spelling it "Stanfurd".
Anyway, anyhow, let it be kown Mr White, that when you post such things :
You should be banned in my book...i know it's a mission for the civilzed to teach the uncivilized. But see, i dont know if it's because i'm getting older or because i'm getting fed up with it, but i'm tired of showing the light when people still wear stunnas shades. YOU CANT SEE SHIT MAN. Your post is disrespectful to entire communities, but you can't FEEL that. It's disrespectful for the few historians and scholars that spent thier whole life fighting stereotypes and falses statements. Just that sadden me.
I could left it at that, but then i read that, and guess what, it was still from the same guy...
Oh man-o-man...NEXT TIME I SEE A WHITE GUY TALKING ABOUT WHITE SLAVERY, i swear i put this board on blast and you will ban me, for sure, but you will also remember me.
You mother son of a bitch, rock, why do i always have to stumble across this kind of white people that you represent. Why do you hang here, you uneducated bastard. Why all you fools haven't been locked up in a psycho ward yet??? Why don't we find a brainpatch for sillydumbstupid mofocker like you. I hope you will have a painful living and a load of bad experiences. At least 7 years of complete unhappiness and bitterness. And at the same time, i pray for you since you are still young. I pray that you will meet someone or end up ina situation that will open your eyes and release the beast within you.
Please ban me in your book.
wow youre really upset and needed to show everyone... nice!
I don't put comedy on ignore.
Rockadelic may be a lot of things, but he is old enough to be ton p??re.
Once again, you're wrong.
Your father may not be dumb but he apparently raised an idiot.
It's a put-down either way, and obviously the majority of the world doesn't know what it means unless it's brought up. Of course, I *did* bring is up, so it's my fault, really.
(I know your username wasn't a reference to the meaning I know of, BTW.)
Rock,
You need a better dictionary:
Cau??ca??sian adj
1. belonging to the light-skinned peoples of Europe, North Africa, western Asia, and India,[/b] formerly considered as a distinct ethnic group (no longer in technical use)
2. relating to people who are white or of European origin
3. belonging to or from Caucasia
4. belonging or relating to either of two unrelated languages spoken in the area around the Caucasus Mountains
n
1. a member of the former Caucasian ethnic group (no longer in technical use)
2. somebody white or of European origin
3. somebody who lives in or comes from Caucasia
4. either of two unrelated language families spoken in the area around the Caucasus Mountains, Kartvelian or South Caucasian, and North Caucasian
Encarta?? World English Dictionary ?? 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
Caucasians include English, Germans, Persians, Arabs, Turks, Afghans, Indian - Asians, Pakistanis.
And in court cases in the United States they decided that there were differences between Caucasian and white.
There was a court case in California in the early 1900s when an Asian Indian sued over being segregated. The Indian guy proved in court that Indians were Caucasian, but in the ruling against him, the court found that while that was true, there was no way that Indians could be considered "white", and therefore he could be legally segregated.
As I said in another post, race is a social construct, not something based upon science. At the beginning of America, "white" was a very exclusive group of people, namey WASPs (White Angle Saxon Protestants) = English only. Germans were not even considered "white" very early in American history, but were later accepted. Irish were not considered white at first because they were Catholics and there were all kinds of negative stereotypes the English had about them being poor, stupid, drunks, etc. In California during the Great Depression when poor whites from the Midwest hit by the Dust Bowl came to the state, commonly called Oakies, they were not considered white either even though they were WASPs. People in California argued that they were "too poor to be white." Italians and Portuguese were not considered white until after WWII because there were Catholics and the stereotypes of having "dark skin."
So if race is based upon science, phsyical characteristics, etc. please explain how being Caucasian, Catholic, poor, etc. excludes you from the "white race"
There are a lot of good books on the changing meaning of white and race in America.
How the Irish Became White
http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Became-White...78939966&sr=1-1
Whiteness of a Different Color
http://www.amazon.com/Whiteness-Differen...78940217&sr=1-6
Working Toward Whiteness
http://www.amazon.com/Working-Toward-Whi...78940217&sr=1-3
Here???s an excerpt from Ronald Takaki???s - Strangers From A Different Shore. Any typos are mine.
???After the enactment of the 1917 ???barred zone??? law, the question of the political status of Asian Indians already in the United States still remained. The federal law of 1790 had reserved naturalized citizenship to ???whites??? only, providing the basis for excluding Chinese, Japanese, and Korean immigrants from citizenship. But Asian Indians were Caucasian. Would they be entitled to naturalized citizenship in the United States? Seeking to set forth a distinction between Asian Indians and white Americans, the Asiatic Exclusion League conceded in 1910 that students of ethnology all agreed ???the Hindus??? were ???members of the same family??? as Americans of European ancestry. But, ???as a matter of fact,??? the league argued, the people of the United States were ???cousins, far removed, of the Hindus of the northwest provinces.??? The ???forefathers??? of white Americans ???pressed to the west, in the everlasting march of conquest, progress, and civilization,??? while the ???forefathers of the Hindus went east and became enslaved, effeminate, caste-ridden and degraded.??? The Western Aryans became the ???Lords of Creation,??? while the Eastern Aryans became the ???slaves of Creation.??? ???And now we the people of the United States are asked to receive these members of a degraded race on terms of equality,??? the league protested. What would be the condition of California if they were allowed to become citizens and if ???this horde of fanatics should be received in our midst????
Asked about Asian-Indian eligibility for citizenship, the U.S. Attorney General Charles J. Bonaparte replied in 1907: ???It seems to me clear that under no construction of the law can natives of British Indian be regarded as white persons.??? But the question had to be determined in the courts. In the 1910 U.S. v Balsara and the 1913 Aikoy Kumar Mazumdar decisions, the courts held that Asian Indians were Caucasians and hence entitled to be considered ???white persons??? eligible to citizenship under the 1790 law. In the 1922 Ozawa decision, the Supreme Court declared that ???white persons??? was synonymous with Caucasian[/b] and therefore that Japanese immigrants were not eligible to naturalized citizenship. Asian Indians thought that the Ozawa case had reinforced their status as Caucasians and their own claim for naturalized citizenship.
But in 1923, their expectations were shattered: in U.S. v. Bhagat Singh Thind, the Supreme Court ruled that Asian Indians were ineligible to naturalization. Arguing that the definition of race had to be based up the ???understanding of the common man,??? the Court held that the term ???white person??? meant an immigrant from northern or western Europe. For the ???practical purposes??? of the stature, the term ???race??? must be applied to ???a group of living persons now possessing in common the requisite characteristics.??? ???It may be true,??? the Court declared, ???the the blond Scandinavian and the brown Hindu have a common ancestor in the dim reaches of antiquity, but the average man knows perfectly well that there are unmistakable and profound differences between them today.??? The law ???does not employ the word ???Caucasian??? but the words ???white persons,?????? the Court explained, ???and these words of common speech and not scientific origin. The word ???Caucasian??? not only was not employed in the law but was probably wholly unfamiliar to the original framers of the stature in 1790.??? Thus Asian Indians, while they were ???Caucasian,??? were not ???white.???[/b] The intention of the Founding Fathers was to ???confer the privilege of citizenship upon the class of persons??? they knew as ???white.??????
But one can surely distinguish indian from afro-amrican, spanish and Dutch and chinese can we?
OK. every country ever has had suppressed their own people in some way or another.
But supressors always respected the suppressed in a way.
Going to a wole other country and dominating another race simply by distinguisihing on characteristics. Thats racism. Thats beyond bold.
They used people that were planned never to get a piece of new haven.
I heard someone say this I dunno if its true.
Africa is laaaarge.
Within africa, in fact (fact?) it were different countries that enslaved
other african countries and sold *them* to the europeans that brought them to the US.
Is that true? Or just a mere story to wash their hands in?
I never heard of this before...
Europeans established slave trading posts along the coast of Africa and never really went that much in land until they colonized the place in the late-1800s. Almost all of the slave trading was done by other African tribes that would capture people and then trade them to the Europeans for goods. The Africans than got shipped to the Americas - U.S., Caribbean, Souther America.
Even my dictionary is wrong.....
I agree with what you're saying about race being used as a 'social construct'. In England we are more hung up about class, than race. You could change the names but say pretty much the same thing, as you wrote above, about the various class divides in the UK. It's the same divides, but on different lines.
But away from America, were the natives of Ireland, Britain, Italy, Germany etc not white, even though they were not being classified along the same line as their American counterparts.
Is the use of white in the sentence "Germans were not even considered "white" very early in American history" really just the bastardisation of the British class system, into somewhere it can no longer exist, so class gets a new definition.
When the Europeans (Portuguese, Dutch, French and British), not just the English, decided that they were superior to the black Africans, so they could justify slavery to themselves. Did they not draw a line there, that they (Europeans) were 'white' and superior.
are you sure....arent there though 3 different skull types...anthropologically speaking?
Negroid
Mongloid
and Caucasoid...I might be wrong, but I thought that was the case...
just for the record...if I was having a discussion about, well anything really, and someone said "shut the fuck up white boy", I would use that as justification as just walking away and ignoring the individual who said it...I dont think you can do much persuasion or convincing after a phrase like that...
Race discussions on this board ARE always comedy...well, for one, there is always one party or one individual that thinks they know ALL the answers and thinks that another group or individual is outta their fucking minds...there is disrespect for the ideas ON both sides of the argument... and speaking of both sides, it is comedy that race discussions always get broken down to just 2 sides on here..the world isnt black and white(metaphorically speaking of course).
There is a fairly substantial body of studies on the topic of the validity of "race" as a legitimate genetic concept. Personally, I've certainly heard the argument that "race" is a social construct far more often than the biological argument, but that could simply be due to the fact that that is the en vogue argument at the moment.
I encourage all to read up on their read-ups. This is only a Wikipedia article on "race" research, but there are a bevy of research articles cited and many are linked.
Edify thyself.
Well, I think we're fairly past the point of debate--it's been established for a long time that "race" doesn't reflect biological reality.
Sure, some people have different physical traits from other people, and I think maybe the folks having trouble swallowing the idea that "race isn't real" are misreading it as a suggestion that the physical differences don't exist.
They do--but the attachment of significance to certain combinations of physical traits as forming a "race" is what's arbitrary; "black," "white," "asian," etc. are social constructs--these categories don't represent any sort of scientific truth, and there are an infinite number of alternative systems of categorization based on physical traits that you could come up with.
Sounds like you're a supporter of "cline" theory:
"One of the crucial innovations in reconceptualizing genotypic and phenotypic variation[/b] was anthropologist C. Loring Brace's observation that such variations, insofar as it is affected by natural selection, migration, or genetic drift, are distributed along geographic gradations; these gradations are called "clines"[/b] (Brace 1964). This point called attention to a problem common to phenotypic-based descriptions of races (for example, those based on hair texture and skin color): they ignore a host of other similarities and difference (for example, blood type) that do not correlate highly with the markers for race.[/b] Thus, anthropologist Frank Livingstone's conclusion that, since clines cross racial boundaries, "there are no races, only clines" (Livingstone 1962: 279). In 1964, biologists Paul Ehrlich and Holm pointed out cases where two or more clines are distributed discordantly???for example, melanin is distributed in a decreasing pattern from the equator north and south; frequencies for the haplotype for beta-S hemoglobin, on the other hand, radiate out of specific geographical points in Africa (Ehrlich and Holm 1964)."
Pretty much, but I would stress that people understand the way "theory" is being used--it's an explanatory model that can never be "proven" and the use of the word doesn't hint at it being dubious. The theory emerged at the beginning of the last century when we didn't have access to, say, genetic data that could substantiate it, but as the amount of information available to us has increased, the theory has only been strengthened. It is not a "theory" in the same sense that my various musings on the origins of SoulStrut littledudism are and a worldview in which black/white/asian reflect biological truth is certainly not a "theory" of comparable validity.