BS: Caucasians?

Subject: BS Caucasians?
From: Darowyn
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 07:48 AM

I noticed that the benighted BNP use the term Caucasian as one of the words to describe their ethnic identity.
I wonder if they would actually welcome Georgians, Azerbijanis, Russians and Turks to their group. They did not seen at all keen on their near neighbours, the Romanians.
Cheers
Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Will Fly
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 07:56 AM

The Nazis also used the term "Aryan" to describe their ideal racial characteristics - blonde, blue-eyed stereotypes, etc. Strange that none of them appeared to actually know the languages of the Indo-Iranian language group. By extension, "Aryan" also meant speakers of those languages.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 10:53 AM

Do we SERIOUSLY expect Bigots to actually THINK ??

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 11:48 AM

Do we SERIOUSLY expect pedants to split infinitives?

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Will Fly
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 03:42 PM

Do we SERIOUSLY expect other pedants to bang on about split infinitives when that hoary old rule was exploded years ago by George Orwell, and also by the Plain English society.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: meself
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 03:44 PM

Yup (unfortunately).

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 04:26 PM

I'd like to see that term "Caucasians" given the status of a "C word", as unacceptable in general use as the "N word".

Fortunately it never seems to have caught on in England, outside Nazi circles perhaps. It's a pity the Americans can't see there way to junk it. Except in respect of people from the Caucasus.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: fumblefingers
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 04:52 PM

McGrath.

What word would you use should Caucasian be declared a racial slur? Use of the "C" word would of course be OK between consenting people of wan complexion with Anglo-Saxon antecedents--and frogs.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 05:32 PM

"Caucasian" is a stupid word, a hangover from daft pseudo-scientific racism in the nineteenth century.   

The Caucasus is a range of mountains on the far side of Europe, where it butts up against Iran and Iraq, where there are a few small countries whose variegated inhabitants don't get on too well with each other.

Calling "white" people "Caucasian" is akin to referring to "black" people as "Ethiopian", which was also done at that time - except it's even more bizarre. At least Ethiopia has a certain special status as the only part of Africa which had at that time successfully resisted colonial rule. Nothing equivalent to that for the Caucasus.

If it's important to people to have some pseudo-racial label, White and Black are probably the simplest.   How about Cro-Magnon to cover us all? Or indeed "of African descent", since that's where all our ancestors evidently came from.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: maple_leaf_boy
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 05:46 PM

I didn't think caucasian could be a racial slur, although I don't really
like it myself. I consider honky (depending on the context that it's
used), and cracker to be racial slurs.
Actually, there has been new scientific evidence that some of us may
have origiated in Eurasia. There has been a new species discovered
that is nicknamed "hobbit", and it's similar to humans. It could be
that there was a branch of humans which originated in Eurasia. It was
on a documentary I saw. So, it's possible that all of us are not of
African descent.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 06:13 PM

There is overwhelming DNA evidence that we all of us have African ancestors. And there is no convincing evidence to indicate that any of us might also have ancestors from any other branch of humans which developed outside Africa, but plenty to suggest that we haven't.

Which is rather a shame - I'd quite like to feel I had a Neanderthal ancestor way back up the family tree. Or a hobbit for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Gurney
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 06:17 PM

'Anglo-Saxon' is also a bit suspect, because it describes people born in England to Germanic settlers, and their descendents, and ignores the considerable admixture of other europeans, notably several lines of Celt, but also Scandinavians, and locally French, Dutch, and not to forget the Angles who the country was named for.
So if Anglo-Saxons have their kids in America (or anywhere else in the world) they aren't Anglo-Saxon kids, they are (whatever)-Saxon.

Makes my son a NZ-Saxon. No, wait a mo, my wife is from Yorkshire and Northumbrian stock, so she probably carries Viking blood, so.....

Naaah.   Too complicated.   Maybe one day it will get sorted with DNA.




The Google Ad below says "Need an Asian Wife?"

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Gurney
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 06:43 PM

And now, one says 'The DNA Ancestry Project. Discover Your Ancestry with DNA. Find Ethnic and Geographic Origins.'

Obviously, great minds think alike. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Peace
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 08:18 PM

Ain't too many pedigrees left on this planet.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: artbrooks
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 08:40 PM

I don't think Caucasian (or Caucasoid) has been in general use in the US to describe members of the allegedly "white" "race" for at least a generation.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Peace
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 09:05 PM

I think the term is used by the police. Not sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 09:11 PM

When I was in college - long ago - there were four "races": caucasian, negroid, mongolian and mediterranean. I doubt it will be more than 50 years before there is mainly one designation: mixed. And I shall be very glad to see it come to pass.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: pdq
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 09:54 PM

Capoid - Bushman, Hotentot maybe a few other small groups from southern Africa

Negroid - Dominant group from central Africa

Caucasoid - People from India, Europe and Middle East

Orientaloid - People from Far East, as Chinese and Japanese

Australoid - Native of Australia or "Aborinionals"

That is what an educated person would have leared about 50 years ago (actually, in 1962).

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: meself
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 11:35 PM

"Caucasian" is used in the States, particularly in police/crime reports ("The suspect is Caucasian, five-foot ten", etc.).

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: artbrooks
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 11:41 PM

Well, the ones I see say "white (or Anglo), five-foot ten", but I suppose that there are local variants.

I have never seen "Orientaloid"...when I was growing up in the 1950s, the most common term was Mongoloid, which included "American Indians". The term was dropped, I think, because it was also used for what we now refer to as people with Down's Syndrome.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: meself
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 12:04 AM

I hear the term occasionally on American news reports. But, yeah, it may just be in certain areas that it's still commonly used.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: GUEST,jeff
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 02:02 AM

When I see the ethnicity box on any form w/a phrase such as Caucasian or White I simply cross it out and hand write 'Celtic/Saxon' as my heritage is Welsh/English on both sides of my family tree. Have been doing it for years and will continue to do so. Caucasian is just too broad a term and though we may have all originated in Africa thousands of years ago I think 3-400 years back is far enough to define one's ethnic origins should it be necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: meself
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 11:14 AM

I can't think of an occasion when I was asked to check an "ethnicity box" on a form.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 12:01 PM

Based on the DNA evidence noted upthread, I amhappy to announce I am actually an African-AMerican.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 01:28 PM

When Cajuns leak, I guess they must be caulked! That makes them...

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: maple_leaf_boy
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 01:37 PM

What is the scientific term for Natives of North America?
I have only heard Native or Aboriginal American to describe them, but
no scientific term with the suffix -oid.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: pdq
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 02:41 PM

I have never heard of American Indians (aka Native Americans) called Aboriginal in any form of that word. It is usually reserved for Australian natives.

The American Indians are from many different backgrounds and different groups came a different times over a period of approximately 30,000 years.

The Eskimo, I believe are "oriental", the notheastern tribes are largely "caucasian" and the Artic groups are related to other Arctic peoples in Siberia, etc.

That leaves the soutwestern tribes and extending south through Mexico and South America. Some feel that these are a differnt "race" called Proto-Australoid which produced the American natives as well as the Australian natives, but they themselves are now extinct.

I have read three books on the origins of American natives and my conclusion is that all experts make educated guesses. Not a very exact science.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: artbrooks
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 03:08 PM

As I said earlier, when I was in school in the US (in the 1950s and 1960s), American Indians (Amerinds) were considered part of the Mongoloid race, since they were generally considered to have migrated to the Americas over the Siberian land bridge from Asia during the Ice Ages. However, I think even then that various anthropologists disagreed with that. Today, of course, anyone with the brains of a cockroach knows that the alleged divisions between the alleged races are entirely artificial..."Whites" and "Blacks" are as much different races as are collies and poodles.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: meself
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 03:15 PM

"Aboriginal" for "American Indian" has been one of the pc English terms widely used in Canada for the past twenty years or so. The French equivalent is "auchtotone". Similarly, "Inuit" has become the preferred term for those alternatively known as Eskimoes.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 03:27 PM

I think the guy who runs the Chinese takeaway just off Oliver Plunkett Street could justifiably be referred to as a Cork Asian.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: gnu
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 03:39 PM

Hahahahaa... excellent Paul. If we ALL had a sense of humour about how silly it all is, we might be a step closer to getting rid of the crap.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: jeffp
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 03:44 PM

My first job out of college in 1975 involved, among other things, entering data from job forms filled out on new employees of a major retail chain. The last bit of data, after name, address, etc., was the COINS code:

Caucasian
Oriental
Indian
Negro
Spanish

I doubt they use those categories any more. At least I hope not.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: 3refs
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 03:47 PM

I've never heard the word "Orientaloid", they were call Mongoloids. I was taught in college that there were 3 great races of people. The previously mentioned, negroids and caucasoids. All others were sub-races.
Except the real biggy....the human race!

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Lox
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 04:06 PM

""Caucasian" is a stupid word, a hangover from daft pseudo-scientific racism in the nineteenth century. "

100% correct McGrath.

It is about as helpful as the terms that went wih it - negroid and mongoloid - terms which science has shunned and treated with utter disregard for a long time.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 09:56 PM

They were just getting oriented, and knew not what they do.

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 01:38 PM

"Whites" and "Blacks" are as much different races as are collies and poodles.

I agree and noone would consider collies and poodles to be of just one race.

There are several definitions of the concept of race. It could be via DNA, but the peresent knowledge doesn't allow a classification along that line. I expect that'll change in the next few decades. Another definition is behavioural: If humans are able to visually differentiate with a high confidence between people(animals) of differing appearences within one species then one might use the concept of races.

This concept will be used by nearly everyone (including you) under some circumstances. If your grandchildren, Amos, will use your announcement to be of African-American descent in order to be treated differentially at university admission, someone will tell them that they just do not look like deserving the preferential admission treatement reserved for African Americans. If one of us is a victim of assault and battery I expect we will use labels along racial (sexual, linguistic) lines to describe the perpetrator. Why do we use such labels in these circumstances? Because we trust that others know what we mean. If I describe a perpetrator as white, male, 20ish with a Hessian accent, and with no visible hair on his head, that excludes a lot of people from any suspicion.

I think many of the contributors here confuse two very different things. Since in the past so often these racial labels (Aryan, for instance, in my country) have been abused for completely undeserved political discrimination up to state sponsored murder they (the contributors) want to get rid of the labels used for discrimination when if fact it is discrimination along racial, sexist, sectarian,... lines is what we have to fight against. You wouldn't want to eliminate the labels male/female, would you, just because the second part of this label has so often been used for discrimination in jobs, payment, admission to scarce resources?

Sometimes it is useful to eliminate a previously used label, but the argument that in a verbatim sense that label is wrong is a very weak argument. Pars pro toto like in "Caucasians" is a very common practice in labeling. 'The "Romans" have conquered the Southern half of the isle of Great Britain' you'd accept without missing a heartbeat as a correct descrition of what happend some 2000 years ago. Or would you really want to object that most of them did not come from Rome, actually? Many labels we use daily are wrong in a (historic) verbatim sense but we know what they mean. "Germans" is a historically wrong label, "African American" too for obvious reasons, and "antisemitic" as well. So what? We use the words and we know what we mean.

I think I share with most of you the noble feeling that has led to your posts but I consider your arguments to be dismally weak.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 02:14 PM

One of my sons' comeedian friends has an interview posted somewehere on the web (as a video) wherein he talks about his Eskimo co-worker.

Q: "There really have Eskimos in New York City?"

A: "Well, his parents were both Inuits, but he got out of it."

Seriously, though: Who decided that the word "Eskimo" had suddently become demaening, or incorrect for whatever other reason, and needed to be replaced by the word "Inuit"? And, for heaven's sake, WHY?

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: meself
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 02:53 PM

In Canada, "Eskimo" has been rarely used for a good thirty years or so, if not longer, among educated people, at least. It is a name given the Inuit by their Native (Indian) enemies, and apparently means "eaters of raw meat". Which they are, of course - however, it is a custom which has been used to mock them, and I think that is the basis of whatever sensitivity they or some of them have regarding the term "Eskimo". Apart from the fact that it is simply not what they call themselves in their own language (Inuttitut), which is still widely spoken.

In the Inuit village in which I spent several years, the young people used the term "Eskimo" to refer jocularly to what they seemed to consider their pre-modern ancestors and their culture - "pre-modern", in their case, meant pre-1960s. The kids seemed both proud of and amused by their rugged forebears; they clearly saw themselves as connected with but culturally different from "Eskimos".

By the way, they would get a kick out of hearing someone referred to as "white" - "How white was he?" was a typical response. Don't know what they would have made of "Caucasian". But I can imagine ...

As to who decided that "Eskimo" had "suddenly" become demeaning, etc. - well, the push to replace the usage no doubt came out of some university. But - I think you might find it easier just to accept changing fashions in usage; there's not much you can do about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 03:02 PM

Graham Greene, the Canadian actor, was asked many many times (too many times!) what is it like to be an Indian actor, his reply, time and time again, was and is, "I've no idea, I wasn't born in, nor have I ever been to, India."

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: meself
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 03:27 PM

Yeah, but I'll bet if they kept asking what it is like to be an Aboriginal actor, he would have started saying, "I've no idea - I'm an Indian actor!"

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 03:49 PM

But the original stupid question (it gives stupid a very bad name) came from a Anglo Saxon,or white man, depending on whether you're politically correct or not.

so keep it to yourself

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: meself
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 03:52 PM

?

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 03:59 PM

the notheastern tribes are largely "caucasian"

I'd like to see some authoritative source for that statement. Never heard it said before, although that of course means nothing in itself; there's a lot of things in the world I've never heard. But that statement is at odds with my general understanding, which might indeed be wrong.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: meself
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 04:05 PM

There does seem to be some evidence to suggest that some early Europeans crossed to and settled in North America during one of these ice ages. Don't know how widely accepted that theory is among scholars. And I don't know if that theory is what the earlier poster was referring to. And I agree; a source, authoritative or otherwise, would be of interest.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 04:09 PM

"Inuit" is also pretty inaccurate - "The Inuit Circumpolar Conference defines its constituency to include Canada's Inuit and Inuvialuit, Greenland's Kalaallit people, Alaska's Inupiaq and Yupik people, and Russia's Yupik. However, the Yupik are not Inuit in the sense of being descended from the Thule and prefer to be called Yupik or Eskimo." *From here.

It's rather as if it had been decided to call all Africans "Zulus".

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: meself
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 04:20 PM

By the same token, "Inuit" is not an inaccurate term for the Inuit. I don't know anything much about the history of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, but I don't think it's fair to pass judgement on the use of the term generally on the basis of its use in that limited context.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 05:05 PM

Anglo-Saxon is certainly not an equivalent to white, any more than calling any white person Polish is accurate. And calling someone a WASP unless they really and truly have all of the characteristics is insulting if they are not and probably meant to be if they are and probably is there too. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: pdq
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 05:58 PM

Are the Indians of the US northeast largely Caucasian?

Well, compare this profile to those of the Eskimo, then to Romans...

                                                                      exhibit A

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 06:14 PM

That coin is an image by one artist, of one individual (if it was even modeled on a real person). And not conclusive in any case.

And of course "largely Caucasian" means what? What does "largely" mean there? I would normally take "largely" in such a usage to mean "predominantly". Or at least "constituting a large part of".

I doubt it, but I'd like to know on what basis the statement was made.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: meself
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 07:00 PM

"And calling someone a WASP unless they really and truly have all of the characteristics is insulting if they are not ... "

Yes - check to make sure that they are not only Anglo-Saxon, but white as well!

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: maple_leaf_boy
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 07:03 PM

I'm pretty sure that the Native Americans in the North-East U.S.
resemble the Natives of South-East Canadians, and they don't look
Caucasian to me. That coin resembles a Mi'kmaq.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 07:25 PM

yerself, I think you've been taken in by a very common American meme; to deny that the Injuns are Natives. Ever since the rectumisation (sorry- colonisation), the settlers were trying to invoke westtern influences- Vikings, Irishmen, Welshmen, even Egyptians (the latest mob being Gavin Whatsisname's Chinese) to explain any traces of "civilisation" amiong the red faced savages. They could't possibly have done it for themselves.

And remember that Whiteys and Injuns interbred from Night One.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: artbrooks
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 07:29 PM

I'm not sure if Anglo-Saxon is certainly not an equivalent to white was directed at my earlier comment but, if it was, that wasn't what i was saying. In New Mexico, where I live, people with light complexions who are not of Spanish-speaking heritage are commonly referred to as Anglos (not Anglo-Saxons) It makes no difference if their ethnic background is English, Jewish or Polish - they are Anglos.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: meself
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 07:46 PM

Paul: I don't see that I've been "taken in" by anything. However, I do choose not to close my mind for political reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: artbrooks
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 08:58 PM

I have never heard any resident of the US (aka American) say that he or she thought that Indians were not native to the American continents, other than in the context of their migration some epochs ago. That is what is taught in school and what is seen as a generally-accepted fact. One can, of course, find any kind of nut on the web. The Flat Earth Society is still alive and well.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 12:00 AM

Well don't go calling Catholics Protestants, which is what the P in WASP is for, and I am sure they would prefer not to be called Catholics. Whatever anyone is is probably perfect but nevertheless if you are going to call names, which of course we shouldn't, at least get it right. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 12:20 AM

"I have never heard any resident of the US (aka American) say that he or she thought that Indians were not native to the American continents, other than in the context of their migration some epochs ago."

                  Well, that's true as far as it goes, but recent investigations have suggested that the North and South American continents were populated from a variety of locations. The "one source" theory dosen't seem to work any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: artbrooks
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 06:04 AM

Who used the term WASP on this thread, mg? Only you, that I see.

Riginslinger, could you give a link for those "recent investigations"? Nothing I'd heard of, and I thought I kept up with that sort of thing fairly well.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: mkebenn
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 04:48 PM

I always took WASP as a compliment, and I am a prod(well, Anglican, anyway). If you call a lovely young lady a Latina, is she insulted, but too gracious to show it? Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: artbrooks
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 05:22 PM

Why call her anything but lovely? Were the circumstances different, would you call her a lovely young Chinese?

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 06:52 PM

Oy! I've been chatting with a lovely young Thai girl on the morning commute. I was quite suprised when after 3 months of pleasantries (conversation is a bit limited - her written English is, I hear, excellent, but she has big problems with consonants) she told me she is an engineer, specialising in plastics technology. Not at all what I expected- she's only over here, working in Thai restaurants in the evenings, to learn the language. Wasp waisted, but no WASP.

Riginslinger, please tell us some sources, a link will do. There's a lot of hot air (on all sides) about Native Americans, and it's as well to be as open as possible about things. You may not be wrong, but I for one would like to know.

But back to the B*P. We know what they mean- and it's sad that England has failed to develop a nationalism that isn't shortthand for "send them home". Nationalism can be inclusive or exclusive. That's why Irish nationalism is so successful- at least up to the demise of the tiger, it projected "look here, we've got a great culture, come and share it". Whereas the English Tories (respectable right to USians, and FAR to the left of most Republicans, and many Democrats for that matter) have allied themselves with a shower of Latvian headbangers who worship the Waffen SS, and the Cross of Saint George symbolises either football hooliganism or xenophobia.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 11:40 PM

"'Riginslinger, could you give a link for those "recent investigations"?'"

                     Art, the woods are full of them. Here are a few.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0923/p13s01-stgn.html

http://discovermagazine.com/1993/oct/comingtoamerica275/

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/kman/

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: robomatic
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 04:55 PM

This so brings me back to the early Eighties:

Devo:

Mongoloid he was a mongoloid
Happier than you and me
Mongoloid he was a mongoloid
And it determined what he could see
Mongoloid he was a mongoloid
One chromosome too many
Mongoloid he was a mongoloid
And it determined what he could see
And he wore a hat
And he had a job
And he brought home the bacon
So that no one knew
Mongoloid he was a mongoloid
His friends were unaware
Mongoloid he was a mongoloid
Nobody even cared

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 05:29 PM

Toward further clarity or confusion, as one chooses, note the different designations used herein:

"After some 500 years of a relationship that has swung from partnership to domination, from mutual respect and co-operation to paternalism and attempted assimilation, Canada must now work out fair and lasting terms of coexistence with Aboriginal people." - Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996

Since the times of William Penn and John Woolman, Friends have been listening to and involved with concerns of Aboriginal Peoples. Canadian Friends continue to carry concerns through Monthly Meetings or through the Quaker Aboriginal Affairs Committee (QAAC). The formal beginnings of QAAC were prefaced by a minute recorded by Canadian Yearly Meeting 1974:

"...a confrontation between the Ojibway people of the [Kenora] area and various levels of government...has occupied our hearts and minds. We are concerned that active violence not erupt; and equally concerned that long standing grievances be understood, and all measures of settlement of those grievances be encouraged..."

Friends then went to Kenora to be a presence and to hear first hand the long standing grievances concerning land rights, housing, medical care, education, Native spirituality, child welfare, and mercury poisoning.

Friends have continued to listen and respond to the ongoing concerns of the First Nations of Canada. These include: self-determination; spirituality; land rights; fishing and hunting rights; health; housing; education; child welfare; extraction of natural resources; hydroelectric projects; protection of burial grounds; weapons testing; and the tourist industry.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 07:37 PM

"Inuit" is not an inaccurate term for the Inuit. Thta is u questionably true, by definition.

But it is inaccurate when it is used to refer to people who may have been called "Eskimos" but who are not Inuit.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: meself
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 08:48 PM

Yes, of course. But who is referring to non-Inuit as Inuit? Unless I've missed something, your point seems to have to do entirely with some reported statement emanating from the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, which perhaps was understood by those who made it to have a limited application, e.g., for purposes of the Conference policy, legal documents, etc. As far as I know, I've never heard anyone use the term Inuit that broadly.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 09:11 PM

Inuit (plural; the singular Inuk means "man" or "person") is a general term for a group of culturally similar indigenous peoples inhabiting the Arctic regions of Canada, Greenland, and Alaska. The Inuit language is grouped under Eskimo-Aleut languages.[2]

It is my understanding that the term "Inuit", meaning "The People" is the choice this group of persons has made for themselves. They are, in fact, "The People"

Instead of waffling all over the place, LOOK at the definitions. It is so easy.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: meself
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 09:33 PM

I don't think you understand what we are talking about. But thank you for your input.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 09:45 PM

I went back and scanned some of this thread, right from the get go. I think I have at least as good an understanding of the wandering through the 100 A Woods which this thread has taken as anyone else. It has waffled all over the place without defining any of the terms being used. Just another fun thread for those who merely want to wander. Once in awhile, it is good to look at the signposts.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: SharonA
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 10:58 PM

Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Negroid, Orientaloid..... it's enough to make a person ann-oid.

So, are little green men from outer space Asteroid?

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: frogprince
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 11:23 PM

I just google "the races of man"; none of you are even close to right. Here's the correct listing:

   "The races of man; elf, human, dwarf and halfling"

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 11:26 PM

Which ones post on mudcat??

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 01:58 AM

There's mes- elf of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: meself
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 02:02 AM

I resemble that remark!

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: GUEST,CrazyEddie
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 03:59 AM

I post occasionally, but I don't make a hobbit of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 04:50 PM

My point was that the term "Inuit" properly speaking should not automatically be substituted for "Eskimo" regardless of context, since only some of those who have been referred to as "Eskimos" are in fact Inuit.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: meself
Date: 29 Jun 09 - 05:14 PM

Okay - now I see what you're getting at!

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 11:50 AM

Then their was the Filipino immigrant family who opened a shop in South West Ireland ...



And called it "Cork Asians"

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 12:07 PM

Frogprince told us:


I just google "the races of man"; none of you are even close to right. Here's the correct listing:

   "The races of man; elf, human, dwarf and halfling"

I don't doubt your word that you found that in Googling. However, since it clearly refers to Tolkien's world, one must use Tolkien's classification.

Elves are not man
Dwarves are not man
Humans, of course, are.
And to my knowledge Tolkien did not clearly show what relationship Hobbits have to man, if any. He does refer to them as "people", or "one of the free peoples".

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 05:25 PM

Addendum:

"One of the free peoples", the others being elves, dwarves, man, and ents.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: frogprince
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 06:47 PM

Actually, what came up on google was a blurb, possibly a cover blurb, for some rip-off-of-Tolkein book that I wouldn't bother with; but, hey, it's about as "scientific" as the classification that was (so far as my experience indicates) universally accepted for any number of lifetimes.

One of the lamest pieces of garbage I've seen was a white supremest publication explaining that "Western European Man" is descended from the Cromagnon (sp?) and all other so-called humans are descended from the Neandrathal.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 09:10 PM

Yeah, frogprince, I don't see how that works either. If I remember right, the only place traces of Neanderthal has ever been found was in Europe, and maybe a little in western Asia.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 09:18 PM

With the possible exception of pdq, no one posting seems to have any idea of what the term Caucasian entails. It has been limited and expanded and twisted in many ways for political and cultural advantage, and no longer has meaning in common speech, although it remains a good overall term for talking about certain features, physical, linguistic and to some extent cultural, of a large group of people.

The term refers to the large group of peoples, more or less closely related, who extend from India and western Asia to Europe and North Africa. They share certain features, one being light to brown skin. Included are the people of the Caucasus, but they are a small part of the whole. The name was selected by anthropologists for the group because the Caucasus region is sort of geographically central to the widespread area occupied by the many peoples of the group.

Genome study is modifying patterns to some extent, but biologic and demographic factors are determinant. Genome study has determined a common origin or ancestry for humans, but human genetic variation is important to many studies including medicine.

A parallel term in language study is Indo-European, a group of languages which are spoken over much the same area.

One of the more peculiar decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court (1923) was with regard to an Asian Indian, Bhagat Singh, who the court said was Caucasian, but like other Asian Indians, was not 'white.'
Of course this had to do with naturalization, at the time limited to whites. This denied Singh's suit for citizenship. This ruling was changed in 1946.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: frogprince
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 09:46 PM

Accepting that "caucasion" does have an original, valid meaning: I think it is safe to say that most of us have heard the term missused more than we have ever heard it used correctly, and that the missuse has very frequently been linked to harmful ignorance and too often linked to malignant intent.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 12:21 AM

What you are saying is that the users of the term in its scientific sense should invent another? Or that ignorance of proper use should prevail?
Geneticists and physiologists have to be extremely careful in speaking to the public because of the 'all are the same' nonsense that seems to have taken the public mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 01:56 AM

"Western European Man" is descended from the Cromagnon (sp?) and all other so-called humans are descended from the Neandrathal.

Of course, Neanderthals had larger brains than modern humans. For what that's worth.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 07:39 AM

There was once an almost entirely accepted scientific methodology for determining an individual's mental characteristics and personality traits by examination of the shape of his head - Phrenology, aka head bump reading. It is vaguely possible that the pseudoscientific separation of different breeding populations of Man into "races" through the visual examination of physical characteristics such as skin color, head and nose shape, hair type and so forth may have been valid when these populations were geographically isolated. However, because of centuries of interbreeding and geographic mobility, the justification (if there ever was one) for such differentiation has long since disappeared.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: frogprince
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 10:55 AM

I've no objection to the correct usage of a term. On the one hand, I doubt that checking "caucasian" on most census or survey forms really results in anyone learning anything useful. On the other, complaining about "discrimination" because a doctor or medical researcher takes the genetic line he is dealing with into account is a foolish, counterproductive reaction.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: treewind
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 11:20 AM

There is a genuine medical application for the term.
I once worked for a company that was setting up a cardiovascular screening service, and when personal details were filled in everyone was classified into 5 racial groups. I forget the exact names, but Caucasian, Oriental and Hispanic were three of them.

It was quite important to know this, because certain physical characteristics (like blood pressure and pulse rate) had slightly different normal ranges for each group. There was a fair amount of overlap, but if one of those measurements was borderline it was the normal range for that racial group which decided whether the person was considered healthy or not (with all kinds of possible consequences relating to life insurance, or needing further tests etc)

I'm not in favour of banning the term "Caucasian" just because the BNP use it. It won't contribute a jot to banning the BNP. It's the people and the attitudes that need changing, not the terminology!

Anahata

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: pdq
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 11:23 AM

"...because of centuries of interbreeding and geographic mobility, the justification...for such differentiation has long since disappeared..." ~ artbrooks

So, are we ready to go back to "merit" as the sole deciding factor in college entrance standards? Throw all the raciallly-motivated "set-asides" away?

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: robomatic
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 11:37 AM

As Gene Kelly said to Spencer Tracy:

"Darwin was wrong. Man's still an ape!"

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 12:03 PM

Accepting that "caucasian" does have an original, valid meaning: It does indeed - inhabitants of a bunch of small countries in tne Caucasus range of mountains.

It should be kept to that context and not extended to mean "white people", or people of exclusively native European ancestry" or whatever it is intended to denote by those strange people who use the term.

"...5 racial groups. I forget the exact names, but Caucasian, Oriental and Hispanic were three of them." That's really daft - Hispanic is a linguistic term, meaning people who speak Spanish, or by extension come from countries or communities where people speak Spanish. Which means they can be Black, White, any shade of brown, African, European, Asian, American, or any combination of the above.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 12:04 PM

Take a look at this actual family. The girls are two sets of twins.

Which race are they?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1103391/Mixed-race-couple-birth-black-white-twins--second-time.html

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 01:09 PM

Q said:

What you are saying is that the users of the term in its scientific sense should invent another? Or that ignorance of proper use should prevail?

More's the pity, that's the way language goes.

For instance, take the original meanings of "gay" and "partner"; if you try to use the earlier proper terms you're likely to be misunderstood, or at least your meaning may be in doubt or cause nervous titters. Because of almost universal misuse, if you test the utterance "epicenter" by the proper scientific meaning you're going to be confused, to say the least.

What rules in the end is what most people understand. It's often a shame that useful words are ruined for their original use, and new terms will need to be applied if the old meanings are to be communicated.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 04:13 PM

McGrath ~ I have to disagree with you this once. The word "Caucasian" does not necessarily, and not "correctly," refer only to residents of that tiny corner of the former USSR. That's just one of several meanings (or, better, "understandings") of the word.

See Q's post of [30 Jun 09 - 09:18 PM] ~ there is a time-honored scholarly definition whereby that term is used to describe the people native to a large area of Eurasia, the same area where the languages are classified as "Indo-European." This very large and relatively diverse group does indeed share some common characteristics.

It can, of course, be argued that such usage is obsolete. But it's arguable. It can also be argued that ANY classification of humans into separate "races" is obsolete, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 04:54 PM

Treewind has pointed to one medical reason for systems of classification.

There is a tendency on the part of many people to equate terms of the system with intelligence, which was not the reason the subdivisions were made.
German scientists of the 1930s carried the theory too far, and their system was taken up by the Nazis as justification for 'Aryan' dominance; unfortunately in the minds of many their excesses clouded valid attempts at classifications needed for genetic and medical investigations.

One medical study I remember from years ago was a nutritional investigation of difficulties in digestion of cows milk by Venezuelans; the people with European blood lines had few problems, but some indigenous peoples had serious problems with milk.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 05:01 PM

A non-scholarly definition which was invented in a deeply racist time by "scholars" who were steeped in a whole range of attitudes and assumptions that would now be generally recognised as racist.

"Time-honoured" - not perhaps the best expression to use here, except perhaps in an ironic way, in which one might also describe the slave trade or female circumcision as "time-honoured", since they've both been around for a long time.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 07:27 PM

Hilaire Belloc wrote these verses which riduculed the nonsensical notions of these Caucasoids (if I may apply this term to those who still hold on the absurd term "Caucasian - including the British Nazi Party with its current pathetic attempt to import it from the USA, where it appears to be part of the local patois.)

Behold, my child, the Nordic Man
And be as like him as you can.
His legs are long; his mind is slow;
His hair is lank and made of tow.

And here we have the Alpine Race.
Oh! What a broad and foolish face!
His skin is of a dirty yellow,
He is a most unpleasant fellow.

The most degraded of them all
Mediterranean we call.
His hair is crisp, and even curls,
And he is saucy with the girls.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 08:33 PM

Unfortunately, most of us belong to the generation before genomics entered school curicula, and many schools duck the issues because of attitudes such as those expressed by McGrath. A good general article (see full pdf of report):
Geneticizing Disease: Implications for Racial Health, Brooks and Ledford, 2008.
Geneticizing Disease

Some genetic diseases show close correlation with certain groups.
One of these is HHC, or herediary hemachromatosis, largely a disease of Europeans, esp. northern Europeans. Hmmm- McGrath?

Hemoglobin D disorder in strong in the Indian subcontinent; it was brought to UK by returning soldiers and immigrants.
Univ Rochester Genetics

A general survey of genomics and genetics from the Center for Disease Control, suitable for the general public-
genomics

Sickle cell anemia- The U. S. National Institute of Health says "The error in the hemoglobin gene results from a genetic mutation that occurred many thousands of years ago in people in parts of Africa, the Mediterranean Basin, the Middle East, and India. [Most common in sub-Saharan Africans]. www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/blood/sickle/sca_fact.pdf
Harvard Medical-
Sickle

The use of Hispanic as a category was questioned in a post; of course what is meant by the user must be defined.
In the Iberian Peninsula, the majority white population has been affected by the 700 year long presence of Moors, the slave trade and influx of Gypsies.
An initial study is "Joining the Pillars of Hercules: mtDNA Sequences Show Multidirectional Gene Flow in the Western Mediterranean," S. Plaza et al., Ann. Human Genetics, v. 67, no. 4, p. 312ff. Full paper: Iberia
Studies are exploratory but results eventually will affect medical practice.

With regard to 'Hispanic' in the Americas, further complications are added; the content must be defined and other, more complex terms have been defined to encompass the varied indigenous peoples.

Another interesting article from the Center for Jewish Genetic Diseases:

Ashkenazi diseases: Bloom's Syndrome, Canavan Disease, Gaucher Disease, Tay-Sachs, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 09:16 PM

There is no question that some population groups are differentially affected by certain genetically-based diseases, but what has that to do with the racial terms Caucasoid, Mongoloid, etc.? Ashkenazim are Jews whose ancestors come from Northern and Eastern Europe, and so would be considered Caucasian. That doesn't mean Tay-Sachs is a Caucasian disease. Sickle-cell trait appears in 25% of West Africans and 10% of African Americans but, since it also appears in "the Mediterranean Basin, the Middle East, and India", and the population of these regions is generally considered to be Caucasian, sickle-cell anemia would seem to not be a Caucasian disease. Since it appears in less than 1% of the population of South Africa, it would seem that it is likely more related to the incidence of malaria than to any racial characteristics...which is what the World Health Organization says.

"Hispanic", as noted above, refers to people from a particular linguistic background (the term was invented by several mid-level Federal bureaucrats, but that's another story), and has nothing at all to do with "race". Alberto Fujimori (Japanese descent), Hugo Chavez (Indian descent) and Néstor Kirchner (Swiss/Croatian descent) are all Hispanics.

There is only one race - that is the human race - and people in it are different based upon individual backgrounds. Research, medical or otherwise, should be based on population groups, not on some artificial division such as the three (or four - or five) "traditional" racial groupings.

Someone asked earlier if I thought that "merit" should be the only deciding factor in college admissions. You betcha, and in every other decision-making process. At the same time "should be" represents the ideal, and there are situations where historical reliance upon non-merit factors such as race and gender have created imbalances, and there needs to be a mechanism to correct these...and that is another topic for a different discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: pdq
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 09:44 PM

"...historical reliance upon non-merit factors such as race and gender have created imbalances..."

You say "non-merit factors" created the imbalances???

I say "let the best and brightest have the college spots and the susequent jobs". If people like artbrooks want to see more participation by ethnic groups he favors, then send the potential candidates to remedial schooling. I don't mind seeing some tax -payer's money used if it is used effectively.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 09:54 PM

Hopefully, the New Haven fire fighters decision by the Supreme Court will give some guidance to this issue.

             I think affirmative action was a reasonable idea when it was first passed. It was designed to help descendants of American slaves and Native Americans, but it was later expaned to cover such a large collection of people the only people it didn't cover were Euorpean Males.

             The majority became the minority.

             If it had been left alone, Barack Obama would not have been able to benefit from affirmative action, and neither would Collin Powel. His folks were from Jamaica.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 10:05 PM

Hispanic as a term, with various uses, dates back to the 16th c.

No one is arguing the "one race of man." But there are important genetic differences among the groups. Nothing is clear cut because of variation and intermixing but grouping at a level other than population groups is also important to organization of material for research.

Looking at some work with 'Hispanics'-
From the National Cancer Institute- "First workshop on Cancer epidemiology and genomics variation in Hispanic/Latino Populations within the American Continents." http://epi.grants.cancer.gov/admixture/index.html
-Differences in FM02*1 allelic frequency between hispanics of Puerto Rican and Mexican descent. http://dmd.aspetjournals.org/cgi/content/full/32/12/1337
-National Coalition for Health Professional Education in Genetics; several articles; "Genetics, Race and Healthcare," "Genes, Culture and Medicines: Bridging Gaps in Treatment for Hispanic Americans," etc.
-"A genomewide admixture mapping panel for Hispanic/Latino populations," www.citeulike.org/user/daforerog/article/4531691
etc. etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 10:16 PM

The quote is correct. "Non-merit factors" certainly created the imbalances. If not, 52% of senior managers in the US would be female, 13% percent would be of Hispanic origin, and 12% would be African-American. Historically, we (people in general) have made selections for positions based upon gender (i.e., male) and membership in the population group holding the power rather than upon merit factors. This is almost entirely because selecting officials, given the choice and all else being equal, select candidates for jobs who most resemble themselves. Your idea that I favor any specific ethnic group is entirely wrong, and I agree entirely that "the best and the brightest" should have the college spots and the subsequent jobs, and I never said or implied otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Caucasians?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 10:47 PM

Just single out the Male/Female part of the equation. If 52% of the population is female, but only 10% of those want to be senior managers, whereas 48% of the population is male, and 90% of those want to be senior managers, then I think we've come up with a more workable formula.