From: hira@cme.nist.gov (Ron Hira)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
Subject: Re: Caucasian Clarification
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:55:29 GMT
Reply-To: hira@cme.nist.gov
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology

In article <MDAY.92Aug17112107@jukebox.lcs.mit.edu>,
mday@jukebox.lcs.mit.edu (Mark Day) writes:
|>From: mday@jukebox.lcs.mit.edu (Mark Day)
|>Subject: Re: Caucasian Clarification
|>Date: 17 Aug 92 16:21:07 GMT
|>
|>
|>   hira@cme.nist.gov (Ron Hira) writes:
|>   Ok Kevin, here's what my Webster's Third Collegiate Dictionary
(1988) states:
|>
|>   Cau ca soid adj [ from the erroneous notion that the orig. home of the 
|>   hypothetical Indo-Europeans was the Caucasus] designating or of one
of the 
|>   major geographical varieties of human beings, including peoples of Europe,
|>   Africa, the Near East, India, etc., who are generally characterized
by tall
|>   stature, straight or wavy hair, etc. : loosely called the white race
|>   although it embraces many peoples of dark skin color.
|>
|>This is really getting sad.  How about if you *read* what you write?

I most certainly did *read* it.

|>It says right in that dictionary definition that people tend to equate
|>white with Caucasian.  

No, it says that people loosely and *incorrectly* equate it with white.
BTW, in all of these posts, you've yet to respond on what Indian Americans
should be "classified" as, since we're not "Asian American" by your defn.

|>   Look, I'd prefer to keep "race" out of any discussion, since as has been 
|>   pointed out by others that the classifications are flawed at best. Your 
|>   discussion of caucasians is ambiguous to me, and where do people of
Indian 
|>   descent get lumped? I guess that appealing to your sensitivity in this 
|>   matter is futile.
|>
|>The first sentence makes sense, and the second contradicts it.  You
|>aren't avoiding the issue of racial classification by avoiding the
|>word "race".  You seem to want unambiguous racial terms and
|>definitions that allow you to make distinctions among (to use your
|>terms) whites, desis, and "orientals".

Nope. What I was saying is that using the Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid
classifications are next to worthless when discussing racial problems in
America because they're ambiguous. Since you seem to have all of the 
answers, how would you classify whites and non-whites or in your terms 
"caucasoids", "mongoloids", and "negroids"? 

|>However, your flaming about "caucasoids" is just a big waste.  There
|>are many words whose generally-accepted meaning is different from
|>their technical meaning, and the effective meaning of "caucasian" in
|>the U.S. is a synonym for "white".

Obviously its just a big waste on obstinate people like you; however, some
people who might not be aware of the distinction might show suitable 
sensitivity and start changing their ways. A group like scaa is supposed to
be inclusive is it not? Is it so difficult to describe whites as whites 
rather than caucasians? Obviously for someone like you it is too difficult
to ask. 

|>Why not go pick on some really important example of language abuse
|>instead, like the way that "Ice Tea" is gradually replacing "Iced Tea"
|>as the beverage people drink in the summer?  :-)

This discussion may be unimportant to you, but it is important to me. To make
light of it just demonstrates your complete lack of sensitivity and 
understanding in the matter.

|>--Mark Day

BTW, may I ask what race you are?

Ron