From: jpak@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Jim Pak)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
Subject: Re: "Caucasian" vs "White" (was Re: Caucasians don't understand)
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:42:25 GMT
Reply-To: jpak@manute.sps.mot.com (Kinder and Gentler Jim)
Distribution: na
Organization: Motorola Inc.  Austin, Tx.

Well, before I start, let me make clear that in the future, I will try my
very best not to use the term "Caucasian" when I mean "White."  (Aauugh!  No
more CM, CF!  :-) )  But I still want to make some points here.

In article <1992Aug21.131508.14659@nynexst.com> clare@nynexst.com (Clare Chu) writes:
>  Perhaps this is WHY Ron is the ONLY Desi that is posting here.  This lack
>  of respect for how Desi people want to be identified can explain why
>  we hardly see any Desi people posting except on articles that are
>  cross-posted to alt.....indian-american.

OK, that's a good point.

>  I don't think Ron is a one-man crusade.  I think Ron is pointing out
>  that Caucasians include Whites and people on the Indian Subcontinent,
>  as well as Arabs, Semetics, Persians, Afghans, etc.  That there is
>  a whole land mass stretching from the Iberian Peninsula to Western
>  Tibet to the Bengali coast that contains Caucasians, as well as parts
>  of Northern Africa.  To use Caucasians as a generic term when you really
>  mean White Americans is like using Dogs when you mean Chihuahua.

OK, I see your point, BUT...  then isn't using the term "Asian American"
also too general?  The continent of Asia also includes more than just the
Far Eastern and Southeast regions, doesn't it?  Isn't a Russian-American or
a Croatian-American also an Asian American, technically?  But when we say
AA, we never mean Russian-Americans, do we?  So isn't the term AA also too
general?

See what I mean?  Getting semantical over all these terms just causes more
confusion.  Accepting nothing but the absolute semantically correct definition
in one case (Caucasian) but letting another semantically incorrect term slide
(Asian) sounds very inconsistent to me.

>>How are we excluding people of South Asian descent by using the terms
>>"Caucasian" and "White" as synonyms?  If I say CM or CF, that means nobody
>>of South Asian descent is welcome here?
>
>  No, but it sure makes them feel that they're not important enough
>  to be distinguished from generic Caucasians.  Let's pretend that Desi
>  Americans make up a term (popcorn) and (caramel).  Popcorn includes
>  White Americans and "Oriental" Americans (i.e. those whose skin color
>  is included in popcorn color.  Caramel includes Desi Americans, Mexicans,
>  and Puerto Ricans.  Say a gang of KKK members beat up a Desi.  Then
>  a bunch of them say, "Those popcorn people are real racist, prejudiced
>  thugs."  Or let's say, some Desis are discussing how popcorn guys have
>  big beer bellys, belch and stink, and go around thinking they're superior
>  because their skin is light like popcorn.  How would you as a "Oriental"
>  American feel being lumped into this group of racist, beer-guzzling,
>  belchers?

Well, of course I'd hate it.  However, what if someone said, "All Asians have
black hair and brown, slanted eyes."  How does that statement come off to a
white person from Russia?  When people say "Asian" here, they almost never
mean somebody from Russia, right?  Why not?  Russia is part of Asia.  Why is
a broad term like "Asian" acceptable to mean "Oriental," but another broad
term like "Caucasian" unacceptable to mean "White"?

>  This is what Ron is complaining about.  When we go around
>  saying Caucasians just don't understand.  We're automatically including
>  Desis, and all the other people living in that huge land mass.  We
>  really mean White Americans just don't understand.

When *I* say Caucasian, I do *NOT* mean to include Indians.  Just like if I
visited Russia and told you I didn't meet any Asian people, that doesn't mean
I didn't meet any people, period.  (Russian people are Asian, at least most
of them.)  It just means I've met no "Oriental" people.

>  In this group: s.c.asian.american, we should use terms that Asian
>  Americans agree on and prefer.

OK.

>  If Ron as an Asian American prefers that we do not use Caucasian as
>  synonymous with White, then we should take it into more consideration
>  than GENERAL North American usage.

OK, but then go back to my analogy of wanting to have the term "Asian male"
replaced by "Stud God."  Would you really do it just because I (or I and a
few other AMs) wanted that?  If I asked that from now on, white people should
now be called "white devils," would you do it?  Would you expect the majority
of the other posters in the newsgroup to do it?

There is a point in which general language usage should be considered, even
in a group like this which focuses on issues pertaining to a sub-group of
people.

>  You are not counting Ron and his people in as part of the consensus.
>  You're including as consensus "Oriental" Americans and White Americans.

No, I'm really including as "consensus" the people who post here, regardless
of whether they're IA, "Oriental," White, or whatever.

If more Indian American people expressed displeasure over the term "Caucasian,"
then that to me is a decent enough consensus to start thinking about changing
my term usage.  You have to realize that Ron was the ONLY ONE complaining
about it.  I'm not kidding; he really was the only one, until you joined him.
Great, that makes two people.

>>OK, but then realize that using the term "White" exclusively may also piss
>>off some other newcomer then.  So what are we supposed to do?  What if *I*
>
>  Look this newsgroup is for Asian Americans.  I would much rather piss off
>  White people than other Asian Americans.  I'm sorry, but why are we so
>  fricken concerned about what White people think about us, that we would
>  rather piss off someone else.  Anything as long as we don't get those
>  all-mighty White people upset.  Yesssirrr   Masssaa  !!!

OK, I see your point.  BTW, please realize that if just *one* White person
got upset over the use of the term "white," I wouldn't change for him/her
either.

>  Okay, I'll stand with Ron on this one.  Ron doesn't call us Orientals.
>  Why should we include him into our Caucasian discussions when we clearly
>  don't mean IndianAmerican?

OK.

>>Until you started complaining about it, the consensus usage IN THIS NEWSGROUP
>>was to use "Caucasian" as a synonym for "white," hence terms like CM, CF, etc.
>>There have been hundreds upon hundreds of posts where people have used terms
>>like AF/CM, AM/CF, BM/CF, etc etc.  There's a long history in this newsgroup
>>of using those terms (CM and CF) synonymously with white men and women.  So
>>it's awkward as hell now to ask everybody to stop using those terms we're all
>>so familar with just to suit you.  I think you're being overbearing here.
>
>  Well hell, then we're so familiar with Oriental.  Why should be change
>  to Asian?  Why don't we just rename this group soc.culture.oriental.american
>  and get rid of those pesky Desis?  Geez...

If we did change the name to soc.culture.oriental.american and stopped using
the term "Asian" completely, to tell you the truth I personally couldn't care
less.  Like I've said before, I don't think "Oriental" is such an offensive
term anyway.  My parents use it.  Lots of Asian people, particularly the ones
who haven't been in this country all that long still use it, too.  Because of
that, I don't care if someone wants to call me Oriental.  Yes, I'd prefer that
they use the term "Asian."  But if they didn't?  I sure am not going to lose
sleep over it.

Besides, as I've learned here, even the term "Oriental" isn't accurate either,
as it was originally meant to also cover areas in Turkey or something, hence
terms like "Orient Express."

>>You're just one person.  What if you're wrong?  Then we went through all this
>>hassle just to accomodate a person who turned out to be wrong in the end?
>
>  He's not wrong.  Whites should not monopolize the term Caucasian.

Then should "Orientals" monopolize the term "Asian"?  To me, it's the same
silly principle.

>  It's like they think they're the most important people in the world.
>  What about all the people in the Middle East and Subcontinent and
>  Northern Africa???

I think this is more an "American" thing than a racial thing.  Americans think
they're the most important people in the world.

>>But if it *were* just one person, why should the rest of the group stop using
>>terms they've used all along just to suit that one person?
>
>  There are 800,000 Desis out there.  Mostly they haven't posted to
>  this group.

Aha!  So please, let's encourage them to speak up here!!  If they don't speak
up, it's hard for unaware people like me to realize "Caucasian" and "White"
should not be synonymns.

Ron, get more people who think like you on this to start writing here and
also voicing their objections to this.  That's how you build a consensus.
Multiple voices carry more weight than just one.

>  They've tried to start a group soc.culture.indian.america
>  which failed because people thought it was for Native Americans.
>  This group should not be monopolized by "Orientals" and their sympathetic
>  Whites.  This group should (IMHO) share the Desi viewpoint also.
>  Otherwise why call it Asian American???

I agree.  I'm not trying to shut out any Indian American people from this
newsgroup.

>>I really hate having to give up the terms CM and CF, which I've used ten
>>million times in the past to zero objection from anybody.  But we'll see
>>how this works out.  If I still see you as the lone objector later (i.e.
>>you've built no consensus), I will not give up those terms.  If there's a
>>consensus against it, I'll oblige.  But I don't see why I should accept
>>ONE person's views as THE WAY.
>
>  I've used it a million times too, but I'm giving it up.

OK.  I'll give it up too.

> When Ron pointed it out to me, I could see how INSENSTIVE we have all been.

OK, I see this now.

> We expect others to stop using Oriental because we don't like its negative
> connotations.

Personally, I don't mind that term all that much.

> Yet we cannot respect that we are misusing a term and mis-representing
> more than 1 billion people just because we really mean White Americans.

OK, this is also a good point.

> Do you seriously think White Americans represent all the people in that
> huge land mass???

Are you kidding?  You're asking *me* that?  :-)

Jim
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american