Talk:Mediterranean race

honestly

Honestly, I found the "absurd erotica", as user:Paul Barlow calls it, more useful than that "map of the races in europe" which states that people from the East of Turkey are 'Alpine'. Actually, I had been looking for an image that shows how a person supposed to be of the Mediterranean race would look like for so long and finally found in Wikipedia someone that uploaded an image that perfectly served for my purpose (and maybe for the purpose of other people, too). To my mind, those topics should be discussed before taking into action. If I there's no response to this paragraph, I'll revert changes.

--GTubio 09:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may as well say that it should have been discussed before Wurwurk changed the image in the first place. The crucial points are these:

1. This article is about an historical concept, which is no longer used in anthropology but which was important in the history of anthropology at a time when "race theory" was influential. The whole of the article is about writers of the period c1900-1930. To have a picture of a modern woman implies that this race-category is still active. Sure, people still talk loosely about "Mediterraneans", but it is no longer a scientifically adopted category. So an image should be used that illustrates the concept as used in the 1900-1930 period.

2. The image was clearly created as an example of erotica, not for anthropological purposes, so it creates the wrong "tone" for the article.

3. The woman is hardly "typical"; she seems to be a model.

According to Grant (and other writers of the time), the so-called "Alpines" did come originally from "east of Turkey", so I don't know why you find that problematic. The view is, as I say, historical - as is the view that "Caucasians" came originally from the Caucasus. Paul B 15:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the map must be kept for the reasons you have just pointed out. Where I don't agree as fully is in the arguments you provide for having to remove the image of the Mediterranean woman. It doesn't matter if she is not, as you say, "typical" (which could be further discussed what typical is), the point is that she shares TYPICAL TRAITS of what anthropologists at that time called "Mediterranean race" (if she didn't share those traits then the image would be completely useless and should be removed without delay). Furthermore, it is neither relevant if the image was (clearly or not) created as an example of whatever if we can use it properly in this article. Maybe if the woman wasn't beautiful you wouldn't have taken (mistaken?) it as a clear example of erotica. Honestly, I think that an image is better than one thousand words and, if you are talking about a group of physically classified people, an image of a person of that group is a must-be. Sure there are images that fit better than what we had, but I prefer the former image rather than nothing.

I look forward to hearing your response.

--GTubio 20:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You see, they delete it at once. They are a bunch of conspirators.

Overemphasis on Nordicism

I have noticed a disturbing trend here at Wikipedia where articles dealing with topics related to race, anthropology, politics and history are all too often flawed by a persistent hard left slant. It is evident in this article, with its preoccupation with and exageration of the historical significance of 'Nordicism' and gratuitous references to Afrocentrism. The most notorious proponent of Nordicism - Nazi Germany - was of course intimately allied with and enamored of fascist Italy; Hitler's 'Master Spy', Wilhelm Canaris, proudly claimed to be a direct descendant of the swarthy 19th century Greek Admiral Constantine Canaris- so the suggestion that Nordicists generally regarded Mediterraneans as miscgenated untouchables is obviously exagerrated. No mention is made of the fact that a sub-branch of the Mediterranean Race, the Atlanto-Mediterranean, included persons indigenous to Britain. Ironically, by uncritically reiterating the suggestion that the relatively dark complexion of Meditterraneans (as compared with Nordics) is the result of interbreeding with black Africans, they are effectively reiterating the radical Nordicist belief that that the original inhabitants of the Mediterranean were pale whites, darkened by miscgenation with black Africans. The only difference is motive - the Nordicists were attempting to place their ancestors in the realm of classical civilization (much as Afrocentrists do today), while the authors are apparently engaged in some sort of 'deconstruction of whiteness'. In any event, this idea that Meditterraneans are dark because they are essentially 'mulattoes' is not only innacurate, but highly offensive to many Mediterraneans.

WikipediaEditor 02:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you have something useful to add, add it, rather than moaning about its absence. The reference to Afrocentrism is anything but gratuitous, since there is a direct relationship between these debates about the modelling of race and the ways in which connections or separations between "black" and "white" identity have been theorised. The idea that Mediterranean darkness derives from being "mulattos" would only be offensive to a racist. Anyway, it is clearly explained that this theory belongs to the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. If you think this article is 'hard left' in tone, you are fantasising! Paul B 07:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul B wrote: "The idea that Mediterranean darkness derives from being mulattos would only be offensive to a racist ..."

By this reasoning, Nordicism should only be offensive to a racist! In fact, its offensive for many reasons, but the only reason that matters is that its wrong. The references to Afrocentrism and Nordicism are both gratuitous. These are footnotes to the topic if anything, but are presented as the meat. An accurate, balanced article would simply give the neutral facts first and foremost, and mention tangential issues (such as Afrocentrism and Nordicism) only as an afterword. This article is so informed by a 21st century, PC sensibility that it gives the impression that the concept 'Mediterranean race' was a dirty word of sorts, divisive or controversial in its time, and it most certainly was not. It was regarded by most as an innocent if overly formal term for a subdivision of the larger 'white' or 'caucasian' race. I intend to contribute to the article when I have time to do so properly.

WikipediaEditor 23:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"By this reasoning, Nordicism should only be offensive to a racist!" You've lost me I'm afraid. What reasoning are you referring to? Nordicism is the ideological belief that "Nordic" peoples constitute a master race. I guess it's "offensive" if you are not Nordic, but flattering if you are! I don't see how it relates to the point I made. Almost all theorists of the Med Race included within it peoples from North Africa. You seem to misunderstand the point of this article. It is about the ways in which a particular sub-category of "Caucasians" came to be interpreted during the period when the tripartite division (Nordic/Alpine/Med) was most influential – roughly from 1900-1930, but lingering on to Carleton Coon's work in the early 60s. During that period Nordicism was central, not periphoral to the debate. That is the substance. It's anything but periphoral. What in earth is "PC" about this I've no idea. That's not to say extra material about the concept of a Med racial sub-category could not be added, say on the ways in which Sergi, Ripley and others characterised it. Likwise there's no reason why the usage of the concept beyond the period currently covered should not be added to the text. Paul B 14:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...............................................................................................................................

(1) I invite you to consider the following obvious comparison:

Paul B wrote: "The idea that Mediterranean darkness derives from being mulattos would only be offensive to a racist ..."

"The idea that the relatively light complexion and caucasian features of most Egyptians as compared with Sub-Saharan blacks could be derived from being descended from an aboriginal Nordic race would only be offensive to a racist..."

Are you still lost?

(2) Paul wrote: "Almost all theorists of the Med Race included within it peoples from North Africa..."

<SIGHS and buries head in hands> Of course North Africans are Mediterranean - there is nothing 'Afrocentrist' or controversial about that. What is Afrocentrist is the notion that the indigenous population of North Africa is 'black' (that is, racially 'Negroid', which is nonsense).

Could it be that you have been confused by the semantics of the term 'Afrocentrism' (he asked incredulously)?

Afrocentrism is a euphemasim for what (if the word 'Negro' hadn't been effectively outlawed by PC censors - along with any other meaningful term describing people indigenous to Sub-Saharan Africa) would perhaps more accurately be described as "Negrocentrism", a world view that seeks to place black people at the center of all significant history and culture. It is not about continental (here, African) chauvinism, but racial (here, black) chauvinism.

Um... you really didn't know that? Oh well. In any event...

(3) Paul wrote: " Nordicism is the ideological belief that "Nordic" peoples constitute a master race. I guess it's "offensive" if you are not Nordic, but flattering if you are! I don't see how it relates to the point I made."

For a Nordicist to tell an Italian that the ancient Romans didn't look like them (ie. like - say - Al Pacino), but rather, they looked like him (ie. like Arnold Schwartzeneger) - that the only reason Italians today look more like Pacino than Schwartzenegger is because they've mixed with blacks - IS offensive.

Similarly, for an 'Afrocentrist' (ie. Black supremacist) to tell an Italian that the ancient Romans didn't look like them (ie. like - say - Al Pacino), but rather, they looked like him (ie. like rapper Ice Cube) - that the only reason Italians today look more like Pacino than Ice Cube is because they've mixed with whites - IS offensive.

In any event, the important point is that it's wrong, not that its offensive.

Capiche?

WikipediaEditor 01:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...............................................................................................................................

I'm not offended by anyone saying Italians and Mediterraneans have African ancestry. It would make me proud. In fact, I think it's racist to be offended by someone suggesting you might have black ancestry somewhere. Malcolm X himself said he believed Italians had African ancestry. I'm not offended by that at all. I believe it is true that many Mediterraneans have black ancestry, but apparently this is too controversial to discuss. -JJ

TO WikipediaEditor- Oh dear, you are a deeply confused person aren't you? Your increasingly irrational exlamations do not help with reasoned debate. Let's repeat the points in the hope that you can finally grasp them:

1. The article states that some theorists of this time (c.1900s) stated that Med characteristics arose from mixing with peoples from across the Med. That's a fact. Whether you or anyone else finds it offensive or not is irrelevant. It's like complaining about an article on Nazism that says they didn't like Jews on the grounds that it's "offensive" to Jews to include the statement in the article. It would be central to the subject of the article. Capiche?

However my point is that it should not be "offensive" to anyone to be told that they they derive from a genetically mixed heritage. Almost all of us do. If it were demonstated that the light complexions of Egyptians did derive from some ancient Nordic migration then that would simply be a fact, and should not "offend" anyone. It's very very unlikely, but ancient migrations and mixings of peoples happened all the time, so would hardly be a big deal. The fact that some dingbat white supremacists do try to insist on this Nordic Egyptian fantasy is only offensive because it flies in the face of all the evidence we have and because it reveals their ideological agenda – the denigration of all races otgher than their own. It's the agenda that's offensive, not the argument itself, which would just be a neutral theory about ancient migrations without the agenda that is attached to it.

You write, "Of course North Africans are Mediterranean - there is nothing 'Afrocentrist' or controversial about that. What is Afrocentrist is the notion that the indigenous population of North Africa is 'black' (that is, racially 'Negroid', which is nonsense)."

<SIGHS and buries head in hands> Oh dear oh dear. You really are confused aren't you? North Africans are included by theorists of this time in the Med race. Obviously they are Mediterranean in the literal sense, since North Africa is on the Mediterranean. The issue here is the modelling of race and the ideological implications of the category of the "Med Race" as one which includes in a single concept both North Africans and Southern Europeans. I suggest you actually read Sergi's or Ripley's books. I suggest you look at early twentieth century copies of the Journal of Negro History and the writings of DuBois to see how this argument became relevant to the early history of Afrocentrism. Sergi claims that Med peoples originated in Africa and migrated into Europe. Authors in the JNH make arguments about the origins of Greek Cultural thought in African peoples that parallel some of the "Out of Africa" claims more recently made by Bernal and others. Furthermore the argument provides an intellectual tool against the one drop theory that valorises racial mixing and the claim that Greco-Roman culture had its roots in Africa. This is as much a crucial part of Afrocentrism as the simplistic claims about ancient Egyptians or Berbers being "black".

(sighs again)

Stop being pointlessly "offended" and look at the arguments and the issues. And no, you are mistaken when you write that "the important point is that it's wrong." It is not wrong as an account of what these theorists wrote and what was historically and ideologically important about it. That is the subject of the article. Paul B 15:40 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I haven't been in any hurry to respond to your latest comments, with all due respect, because your comments have a rather delicious 'self-delegitimizing' quality. I mean, you seriously cite Martin Bernal! (You can't make this stuff up folks - see his previous comments above ;) ).

There is one rather remarkable line in Paul's latest response that can't be ignored however. First, he quoted me as follows:

You write, "Of course North Africans are Mediterranean - there is nothing 'Afrocentrist' or controversial about that. What is Afrocentrist is the notion that the indigenous population of North Africa is 'black' (that is, racially 'Negroid', which is nonsense)."

He then continues:

<SIGHS and buries head in hands> Oh dear oh dear. You really are confused aren't you? North Africans are included by theorists of this time in the Med race. Obviously they are Mediterranean in the literal sense, since North Africa is on the Mediterranean

This is a rather extraordinary display of Paul's confusion. Of course North Africans are Mediterranean, and not just in 'a literal sense', but in EVERY sense. I never objected to as much. I merely point out that the indigenous population of North Africans has histiorically been classified as caucasian - not 'black'. I don't object in the slightest to the classification of North Africans as Meds. What I object to is the suggestion that the indigenous populatiom of Mediterranean Afirca is black/negroid - it aint.

Furthermore, I agree with you that someone shouldn't be offended at the suggestion that they are of mixed heritage - we all are, and contemporary DNA analysis suggests there is more variation within than between 'races'.

However, just as you are offended (or can understand how one could be offended) by the idea of Nordics in prehistoric Egypt NOT because the idea of Nordics in Egypt is offensive per se but because of the motives for such claims, you should be offended (or at least understand how one could be offended) by the suggestion that Negroes contribute signifcantly to the genetic heritage of Southern Europeans - again - NOT because one should find the prospect of black ancestry repugnant, but because the claim is motivated by racial politics rather than sound scholarship.

Capiche?

I respectfully suggest that any further debate on this subject between us take place on our respective personal discussion pages - we are cluttering this page up.

WikipediaEditor 22:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reading the arguments of this page, and Paul,s arguments and now I have no doubts. These people are presenting these articles in the encyclopedia as the Mediterranean race, but then they use for their discussion authors who are behind Nordicism and they insist on presenting the Mediterranean race like it was presented in the 19th or beginning of the 20th century and cite a racist like Grant and so on. One of these guys even says that if there should be a picture of a Mediterranean it should reflect how it would have been presented almost 100 years ago. These articles on races all have a very Nodicist connotation. They all go about the idea of Nordics as being somewhere. But this is only confirming one thing. I bet that all these articles are being written by people from the U.S. I have lived in different places due to my job. Six years in The United States, and nowhere have I seen such an obsession with race as in that country. It is the most racist country that I have known. The government tries to fight it, but popular culture is too strong. It is impossible to try to explain anything to these people. They have been just brought up with too many racist ideas in their heads in a more or less conscious way. They see the world in a way which is unique and impossible to change. It would take generations. I also lived 3 years in Germany, where they should have been more contaminated by these ideas, but there is no comparison. Everyone can easily see that most internet pages dealing with White supremacism and Nordicism come from the U.S. In this article about race, that should be a scientific article since it is in an encyclopedia, they point out theories like the one stating that Mediterraneans where mixed with Black Africans and that this is why they are like that, trying to imply that in fact they were Nordic when the Mediterranean was the cradle of civilization and all that. It is hopeless. You will talk to them and they will continue with their view of the world. There are only two possible reasons: One is that they are Nodicists trying to pass for regular scholars. The other, quite probable, is that they are not Nordicists. They just carry with them a view of the world that has been passed down generation after generation. In either case it is not very useful to try and reason with them. They will just tell you. "This is not a contribution to the encyclopedia".

-What you just said is completely unfair to the United States. I despise racism, also. But you cannot compare the U.S to Germany. The U.S. has been inhabited by so many different races, ethnic groups, religions, and cultures. Germany has not. Germany has had one constant culture, and the majority of Germans are of German ethnicity. There are hardly any Blacks, Asians, dark Italians, or Jews in the country, so the white German people have never really had to coexist with these other groups. Maybe if they did, you would see how racist Germans can be. Plus, in the modern U.S., people closely identify and cling onto their cultures and races so that they may have their own identity in such a large country. This may come off as racism to you, but it is merely the resisting of assimilation into one big bland US culture.

Look, the article is about a racial category that no longer exists as such. It is about how that category emerged and about how it was incorporated into models of racial difference in the period when "race theory" was influential. I'm sorry you don't understand that. The Nordic/Alpine/Mediterranean model was how these groups were divided up at this time. The "mixture" argument was commonplace among Nordicists, like it or not and was also used by opponents of the one-drop position to argue for the benefits of genetic diversity. Paul B 02:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You continue on the same track, as it should be expected. Have you never read a scientific article about The Mediterranean Race, or about any other Race? The article is not being presented in the encyclopedia with an entry like: View on the human races by Nordicist theories. The article is being presented as The Mediterranean Race. It only takes basic intelligence to see the difference. Yet you continue pointing out theories that are not scientific, and continue citing as a source Nordicist theories.You could also cite The March of the Titans as a source. If you want to write about the view of race by Nordicist theories that is another matter. Not that I think it is very constructive to give publicity to those ideas, but anyone is obviously free to do it. But make it clear, do not present it under an entry that is about the Mediterranean Race.

There is no "scientific article" on the Mediterranean race because there is no longer any such racial category. That point is made very clearly in the opening srentences of the article and again at the end. The same is true of the "Alpine race", but no-one complains about that article for the simple reason that no-one identifies themselves as part of the "Alpine race". It's role as an obsolete category is immediately understood. The problem here is that you identify yourself in the name that was given to this race - as though the article is about "Mediterranean peoples". It isn't. It's about a historically significant category.Paul B 17:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you. Of course I identify myself with the Mediterranean race. You just have to go to Spain, Portugal, Italy and then to Norway and to Japan to see that there are races. So on this point we do not agree either. But as I said, name the entry in the encyclopedia properly, and that would be it. And if you doubt the existence of this race I invite you to come to my home town, Mérida, Spain, founded more than two thousand years ago by the Romans under the name Emerita Augusta. Have a look at the dozens of frescos depicting men and women that have survived and that are open to the public, compare them to the people who live there and you will see that they look exactly the same. No Nordics, No Black Africans, both races that I respect and admire, but they belong somewhere else my friend. So what is offensive is to see a lot of foreigners speaking of us without having a clue about us.

Sorry, you seem to misinterpret how our naming policy works. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." In this case, the article title clearly corresponds to the concept as is expressed in all notable English-language literature on the subject. Your own idiosyncratic interpretation of the term is not relevant here. --Fastfission 02:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, of course, Fastfission. That's plain English, ain't it?

I certainly agree with the idea of a specific race around Mediterranean area. Being Italian, I see many similar features on my fellow Italians, as well as on the Spanish, Portuguese, Greek, Turkish, and various other ethnic groups around the Mediterranean Sea. I know that this racial theory is very controversial and has fallen from the mainstream, and I don't agree with all of the old theories myself, but I do think their is some race around the Mediterranean Sea similar to the "Mediterranean race" described in this article. I AM HERE 28 February 2006