Talk:White (people)/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Are people from India white?

Before 1950, Indians from India were classified as racially Hindu, even though some were not Hindu. Between 1950 to 1970, Indians were classified as racially white until some Indian-American organization protested to the Office of Management and Budget to have Indians be removed from the white category, thus Indians today classify themselves as Asian, or Asian Indian. If anybody looks up the word Caucasian in the dictionary, its definition is people who originate from Europe, southwest Asia, North Africa and the Indian sub-continent. It has been 35 years since Indians were taken of the white classification, and they are defined as caucasian in the dictionary. If Indians are defined as caucasian in the dictionary, why do they view themselves as non-white?--Gramaic 09:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, many many europeans seriously think that India is populated by gypsys, which is a coloured wandering race.

No, I think most ethnologists believe that the "gypsys" originated in India, which is something entirely different. Jayjg (talk) 17:27, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Junk data in this wiki article

>Whites living in the United States and Canada will typically have one or several Native American ancestors.

This is simply not true. By 1890 there were next to none indians lefts in North America, except for a few thousands in totally closed reservations. Now consider the huge amount of european immigrants who reached USA between 1890-1927 and tell me where do you see redskin ancestors for them? It is matter of fact that yankees and the whites exterminated the red indian race in North America and so they don't have many descendants. In contrast, the Caribbean, Central and South America are full of people, who were born out of (more or less) peaceful coexistence of native people and Iberian conquerors.

You're making the flawed assumption that there has been little intermarriage between people of different European ethnic groups in North America. In fact, the large majority of white people in the U.S. and Canada are "mutts" of multiple ethnic stripes. I, for instance, have one ancestor that came over around 1900, another that came around 1850, and one that came in the 1600s. (And yes, I have a bit of Native American blood.) Not to rain on your parade, but I wouldn't exactly describe the situation in colonial Latin America as "peaceful coexistence." The Spanish, who encountered far larger numbers of Native Americans in their colonies than the British did to the north, enslaved them en masse. Oh, and the Caribbean? Not exactly full of Native Americans these days. Funnyhat 23:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth - I'd define Caucasian as any native race in europe which is east of the caucus mountains. Define whites as those originally from northern european countries. If you leave it at that and then people can make up their own mind which countries belong in that bracket.

Defining whites as the original people from Northern European countries by itself is not fair. What about the other whites such as the Italians, Greeks, Yugoslavians, Syrians and Lebanese? White people are not just in Northern Europe, whites also originate from Southern and Eastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa.--Gramaic 04:51, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Article was gone, but restored.

An anon user deleted everything from the article earlier, but another anon user restored it. Who the hell would delete an entire article and then replace it with very stupid and childish writings?--Gramaic 05:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Whites living in the United States and Canada will typically have one or several Native American ancestors."

Yes, many or most Whites in the US are native Americans.

But the overwhelming majority have no Indian ancestors.

Love the anti-White racism, guys! Remember: there is only one appropriate avenue for your PC hatred, and you've found it!

Though I highly doubt this claim, for many of the same reasons given above, I've left it in the article until it can be refuted. I have removed the sentence that claims that the majority of Americans are mulattos and mestizos. Even if this is technically true (i.e. if the majority of us one black or native ancestor), it wouldn't make us mulattos or mestizos in the cultural sense of someone who clearly is mixed. Depsite what my screenname would suggest, I think usage defines meaning in this case.
If someone wants to cite some legitimate research showing that the majority of Americans have black or native ancestry, I would welcome that. I hope I've been clear in explaining this. If not, please ask questions. ThePedanticPrick 20:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No objection here, but I'm not the writer. Even so, it is remarkable how many people casually volunteer the information that they are fractionally Native American. It also turns out the something like 40% of the English population, and significant number of Americans too, are descended from Henry II of England. And that something like 30 million Americans are probably Mayflower descendants, most with no knowledge of that fact. Rather than deleting the sentence outright, perhaps the more Wikipedia approach would be to mention all these major, overlapping, ancestral streams. Some "whites" are pround of having "2/32 Cree blood", and others are proud of William the Conqueror, and some are proud of both. We are typically the descendants of kings and slaves, savages, indentured servants, or serfs. So the proper phrains might be, "Whites whose families have lived in the United States and Canada for several generations will typically have ancestors from a variety of nationalities and even races." -Willmcw 08:35, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
I like that. I'll put it in the article to replace the sentence of dubious validity ThePedanticPrick 00:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Actually the only edits I did was to avoid redirects and link to the relative articles. From "Amerindian" to "Native American" for example. User:Dimadick

I'm sorry, it's just that this edit [1] re-arranged or split some passages in ways that confuse the "difference engine" and make it appear as if everything changed. That makes it hard on other editors to follow. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:39, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

race is not an arbitrary social construct

Race is the same as "subspecies," a term used by taxonomists. "Homo sapiens afer" is the scientific name of the negro (See "Race" by John R. Baker, 1974). "Homo" is the genus, "sapiens" is the species and "afer" is the subspecies or race. The concept of race is not invalidated by intergradation (mixing) and even with races of animals it is quite normal and expected that where the range of two subspecies meet there is mixing. The physical differences that identify races represent adaptations to different environments, for example, dark skin is an adaptation to the tropical sun. Race is not just a paintjob. Races can be identified from skeletal remains and from DNA as everybody has seen on television. There are many other physical differences, too. It is important to avoid intergradation and preserve these natural human differences because as the environment changes some races will inevitably be better adapted than others and survive while the others die out. Race-mixing is putting all of humanity's eggs in one basket, so to speak.

It is important to know the motive for some people to make the absurd assertion that there is no such thing as race.

Marxists think that all group conflicts are just proxies for the one conflict that they see as real and legitimate, class conflict. They say that race is an artificial social construct because they think that people who value their own racial identity are suffering from false consciousness. In effect they think that white people are the "bourgeoisie." Marxists hypocritically promote race-consciousness among non-whites as a tactic to create revolutionary consciousness among them.

Jews are hostile to race consciousness and ethnic nationalism among whites while promoting it for themselves. Jews are obviously zoologically white, but they have a strong sense of national (some would say racial) identity and are in competition with European whites among whom they live. Nationalism and race consciousness are major threats to the existence of Jews as a double-identity group occupying a high socioeconomic niche in an alien society. For this reason Jews have promoted multiculturalism, cultural relativism, globalism, and massive immigration. Most of the intellectuals who have attacked the concept of race are either Jews or Marxists or both. For example, Stephen Jay Gould in "The Mismeasure of Man" is a Jew who admits he is a red diaper baby. Noel Ignatiev, author of "How the Irish became White" is a Marxist. In "For Love of Country: Debating the Limits of Patriotism" Martha Nussbaum, Jew, self-servingly proposes that people should focus on universal moral principles and promoting their ethnic interests and disregard the interests of the "host nation."

A long list of interesting books about ethnic conflict is here: Reading List

Here is an interesting web board promoting European American interests with currently 50,000 members: Stormfront

But don't you admit that "Race" is a very fuzzy notion, with no way to say if an individual belongs to one race or another? I think "Race" is at best a descriptive term, like we might say, there are reddish flowers or hardish rocks or fairly rainy days.
This statement caught my eye: "It is important to know the motive for some people to make the absurd assertion that there is no such thing as race."
It is also important to know the motive for some people to make the absurd assertion that there is no such thing as Santa Claus.

User:Backlash (sig added by Sam Spade 08:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC))


Why was this article redirected to Caucasian race?--Gramaic 05:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)