Sometime, people can inadvertently show us they are homophobic/bigotted

[xbuzzerx]

The term "Caucasian" refers to a mountain range in Eastern Europe where it is believed that the first Indo-Europeans settled. Considering most white Americans feel no affinity for Eastern Europe at all, it seems very PC from our side of the fence.

Well... there are a lot of other reasons as well. Not all caucasians are included in white, even if all whites are caucasian. East Indians, hispanics, etc. All very different categories on forms, and in social perception, than "white", even though they are also caucasian. The U.S. has a very special relationship with whiteness, not caucasianness, in its legal history. Laws did briefly embrace the anthropological caucasian argument until the first East Indian applied for whiteness in the courts.

 

[Vitamin]

Well... there are a lot of other reasons as well. Not all caucasians are included in white, even if all whites are caucasian. East Indians, hispanics, etc. All very different categories on forms, and in social perception, than "white", even though they are also caucasian. The U.S. has a very special relationship with whiteness, not caucasianness, in its legal history. Laws did briefly embrace the anthropological caucasian argument until the first East Indian applied for whiteness in the courts.

So basically its even more PC than what I originally knew?

 

[cgymike]

You need to ask Telstra on this one..

 

[goldenmoth]

If they are " scared to mention" it is in part because they are uncertain of the reaction and do not want to offend. If they intend to be to be tolerant, they are, by definition, tolerant.

Ah no. Not when they giggle like idiots afterward

 

[xbuzzerx]

So basically its even more PC than what I originally knew?

It's not P.C. at all. White is the subset of caucasians who are allowed into "the club." If you're caucasian and you do not have another category on a form today, you're white. There are separate choices for East Indians, Hispanics, etc. They are not considered white, even if they are 100% caucasian.

White = the people no one grumbles about when they join the country club.

 

[Vitamin]

It's not P.C. at all. White is the subset of caucasians who are allowed into "the club." If you're caucasian and you do not have another category on a form today, you're white. There are separate choices for East Indians, Hispanics, etc. They are not considered white, even if they are 100% caucasian.

White = the people no one grumbles about when they join the country club.

Trying to lump white people and Eastern Indians together is ridiculously PC. Science can come up with any system it wants for classification, I know that.

 

[pat grimshaw]

...White = the people no one grumbles about when they join the country club.

They grumble at the Koganei Country Club

 

[xbuzzerx]

Trying to lump white people and Eastern Indians together is ridiculously PC. Science can come up with any system it wants for classification, I know that.

What are you talking about? They are a caucasian migratory group. "I'm" not trying to lump them together. They are originally, anthropologically, the same people. Ever heard of a language being referred to as "Indo-European"?

I just brought them up as an example that caucasian does not necessarily = included in whiteness.

 

[pat grimshaw]

Trying to lump white people and Eastern Indians together is ridiculously PC….

You can't argue with Buzzer and his agendas; he believes in ironical notions that Italians and Irish are non-White.

(I wouldn't hire him if I owned Tiffany's Jewellery store; he'd tell me a lump of coal is a diamond.)

 

[Vitamin]

What are you talking about? They are a caucasian migratory group. "I'm" not trying to lump them together. They are originally, anthropologically, the same people. Ever heard of a language being referred to as "Indo-European"?

I just brought them up as an example that caucasian does not necessarily = included in whiteness.

They are not Caucasian in any socially meaningful sense of the word. India isn't even any where near the Caucasus, it's absurd.

 

[xbuzzerx]

They are not Caucasian in any socially meaningful sense of the word. India isn't even any where near the Caucasus, it's absurd.

They aren't considered white, but they are caucasian, along with Persians and many other groups that almost no one in a western country calls "white."

When we're talking about caucasians we're talking about the same stock of people who migrated out of the region in different directions and went all over. Just because you wouldn't consider an Indian person similar to a European doesn't mean that Caucasians only travelled west, because they didn't. They are what Europeans would look like if they'd lived a couple of 10,000 years in subtropical southern Asia.

Not all caucasians are included in white even though all whites are caucasian. Whites are the artificially, socially/culturally separated group of caucasians who came from societies which were on the stronger side of relatively recent human history. That's all. Caucasian is an anthropological term, someone either is or isn't. White is a social construct.

Caucasian race (also Caucasoid or Europid) is the general physical type of some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia, Central Asia and South Asia. The term was used in biological anthropology for many people from these regions, without regard necessarily to skin tone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race

 

[pat grimshaw]

Red is Red. Green is Green. But White is a "Social contruct".

'Social contructs' are very useful if you want to hit other people in the face.

 

[Rolyo85]

Why do I ever click "show post" on Pat's fecal matter? (._. )

 

[pat grimshaw]

Why ..

Because —even though you live in Boys Town— you know that if people live in an Ivory Tower and only speak to people with EXACTLY the same ideas as yourself you will eventually end up with an one-eyed view of the world.

 

[pat grimshaw]

Why do I ever click "show post" ..

Because it is good training for that time in the future when you fall in love and you can your share your life with a man and not a lap-dog.

 

[Vitamin]

They aren't considered white, but they are caucasian, along with Persians and many other groups that almost no one in a western country calls "white."

When we're talking about caucasians we're talking about the same stock of people who migrated out of the region in different directions and went all over. Just because you wouldn't consider an Indian person similar to a European doesn't mean that Caucasians only travelled west, because they didn't. They are what Europeans would look like if they'd lived a couple of 10,000 years in subtropical southern Asia.

Not all caucasians are included in white even though all whites are caucasian. Whites are the artificially, socially/culturally separated group of caucasians who came from societies which were on the stronger side of relatively recent human history. That's all. Caucasian is an anthropological term, someone either is or isn't. White is a social construct.

Caucasian race (also Caucasoid or Europid) is the general physical type of some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia, Central Asia and South Asia. The term was used in biological anthropology for many people from these regions, without regard necessarily to skin tone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race

Two words: What. Ever. Science in no way has to classify people like that. As a matter of fact, all classifications of different types of humans are social constructs. So no, there really is no such thing as a scientific classification of humans. They're all made up, including these stupid anthropological definitions.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Two words: What. Ever. Science in no way has to classify people like that.

Oh? So what we know about linguistics, dental morphology, skull shape, haplogroups, genetics, etc. is all pretty pointless too I guess. Who cares if this population in southwestern Asia had different skeletal structures and an Indo-European language compared to other groups around them, we can't know anything about history from that!

As a matter of fact, all classifications of different types of humans are social constructs. So no, there really is no such thing as a scientific classification of humans. They're all made up, including these stupid anthropological definitions.

The fact that you don't understand the difference doesn't mean there isn't a difference between an anthropological grouping and "white."

 

[bankside]

Oh? So what we know about linguistics, dental morphology, skull shape, haplogroups, genetics, etc. is all pretty pointless too I guess. Who cares if this population in southwestern Asia had different skeletal structures and an Indo-European language compared to other groups around them, we can't know anything about history from that!



The fact that you don't understand the difference doesn't mean there isn't a difference between an anthropological grouping and "white."

Okay well the concept of a social construct is itself a social construct, and we know those are all bullshit. Thus, knowledge is objective and knowable, within certain limits. And the classification of people from the Indian subcontinent as caucasian is not just simply the way it is.

The reason it is that way, is because it follows reality. Even without studying population genetics or archaeological indicators of past migration patterns, or the evolution of the languages in each end of the caucasian world, it's not hard to recognize a similarity based on superficial physical traits.

The point is, arguing against the term "caucasian" has to bring something to the table to overcome the obvious connections between the populations.

 

[cgymike]

Bigoted not bigoted. The OP may need to learn to spell check!