Talk:White people/Archive 4

message: Al-Andalus, what race do you think North Africans and Middle Easterns like Isabelle Adjani, Zinedine Zidane, Hafez al-Assad are? Blue? --Leonardo Alves 23:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: White from North Africa & Middle East

message: This is supposed to be an article about White people, not a platform for a Whiteness Studies style post-modernist deconstruction of 'whiteness'. Yet the latter is precisely what it is. This article describes 'White People' from the radical, controversial perspective of the burgeoning 'field' of 'Whiteness Studies', and does so without any suggestion to the reader that these views are in fact new and extremely controversial. As such, it is not an objective article - it is propganda.
I can see where a reference to Whiteness Studies would be entirely appropriate, complete with link to the Whiteness Studies article, but the thrust should be the conventional understanding of what is meant by White people (ie. the indigenous population of Europe and adjacent areas).
This page is also routinely vandalized by white supremacists, whose restricted, revisionist vision of 'the white race' is ironically quite similar to that of the Whiteness Studies crowd. Ironic only because one would think that white supremacists and left leaning Whiteness Studes enthusiasts should have very different views on race. In fact, their views are quite similar. Both favor a minimalist definition of 'white', where it refers either only to Europeans or only to Northern Europeans. Both favor exclusion of Jews from 'whiteness'. 
However, their motives are quite different. 
The white supremacists want to exclude Jews, Middle Easterners and North Africans from the definition of 'white' because they are either European or else Northern European supremacists, and anti-semites. The Whiteness Studies crowd are essentially the latest incarnation of 'The New Left' of the 1960s. They encourage a revisionist, minimalist definition of white with an eye towards maximizing the pool of people who might regard themselves as outside of and despised by the mainstream; such people are more likely to be open to leftwing ideology. 
In any event, I'm getting mighty sick and tired of having to police this page every week, if not every day, to check for the inevitable returns of nonsensical claims such as:
* Germans, and Swedes were once classified as 'non-whites' in America
* Italians were only considered white after WW2
* Jews were only considered white after WW2
* The term white is historically ambiguous
* Obscure quotes cited out of context to support revisionist claims
As anyone familiar with the absurdities and idiosyncracies of law knows, amongst the countless thousands of pages of recorded legal opinions, you can find obscure legal documents supporting - or seemimg to support- almost any position you can imagine. You can doubtless find instances in which Jim Crow courts decide that a person with black African ancestry (a 'mulatto') is 'white'. Would this constitute evidence that mulatoes were considered white in the Jim Crow south? Of course not. Similarly, amongst the countless thousands of newspaper pages and books printed over the past 200 years, you can find quotes to create an illusion of 'evidence' for any revionist history you could imagine. Should such cherry picked oddities be considered as 'evidence' of extraordinary claims? Of course not. Yet these are precisely the sort of 'facts' that are routinely presented here as 'evidence' that a given white ethnic group was once regarded as something other than white. 
This is not a platform for Whiteness Studies radicals, or self-styled 'Aryan' supremacists who want to limit the defintion of white to Nordics, or self-loathing blacks who want to claim Italians as 'brothas', or liberal Jews who want to be classified with non-whites, or whatever other perversion motivates the persistent vandals of this page. The bottom line is, claims without reputable, credible sources, or out of proper context, will be deleted - hourly if necessary.
Also, the US definition of 'white' is very relevant to this discussion, as most of it is about US racial politics. The fact that it defines Middle Easterners and North Africans as white may be "an inconvenient truth" for revisionists, but it is a fact nonetheless. STOP DELETING IT. Or don't - it will be replaced, every day - HOURLY if necessary. 
68.197.153.198
:My opinion is this article is vandalized most often by "Whiteness Studies" people who want to confuse the issue of "who is White?" to include just about everyone, and at the same time confuse people about European-descended people like the Irish, Germans and Italians.  It boggles the mind that such contradictory ideas get pushed at the same time.  According to some, Irish weren't White, but North Africans and Arabs are.  This type of stuff is constantly making its way in the article! I am also sick of seeing the edits you listed above, we should start a list.  FrankWSweet was insistent upon noting Irish aren't White, and that in Jim Crow South the Chinese were.  People seem to want to say anything anti-white on this page.  I almost wonder how many editors of this page are even White?  This article could use some more input from White people, after all they know themselves, their people, and their history and culture best.Yukirat 21:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You still haven't commented on my compromises. I didn't say that these people were not white at all. Of course Irish people are white, and I do believe that many (though not all) North Africans and Arabs (esp. from the Levant, to a lesser degree in the Arabian Peninsula) are white. I've provided  compromises which make evident the people's current status. Please comment on these so that I can incorporate them into the article. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 21:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: As Yakuriat hasn't commented or rejected on my additions for a week (but an anonymous IP who seems to be a reasonable contributor has), I'm going to add these now. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 01:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop The Vandalism NOW 

message: In Europe of XIX century section is very uninformative, there was a lot of racial prejudice against Slavs in German parts of Europe at that time.
--Molobo 23:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Europe XIX century 

message: This information is unessential to a discussion of Whites.  It's unencyclopedic and obscure as it pertains to this subject.  If Chinese (Asians) attended White schools, because they were not to attend black-only schools, this has nothing to do with Asians or Chinese being White.  It's totally irrelevant to the subject.  This kind of information belongs on a page about Chinese-Americans.  Please stick to the subject article.  The whole idea of an encyclopedia article discussing isolated cases of Asians or "Chinese" in "Jim Crow Mississippi" during the early 20th century is POV and irrelevant.Yukirat 01:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It gives an important insight into the sociological nature of the term white. Even though they were not ever classified as white, they were allowed the legal priveleges of white status. Further, they were deemed "Honorary Whites", and this clearly exemplifies the nature of how "white" was and is a label of privilege and why people throughout history have sought and have slowly came to be included (so long as at least the caucasoid criterion was met). Had they been a caucasoid people, even the Chinese would have come to be included as "Whites" in America, and this says something about the expanding definition of white as used in America. Al-Andalus 03:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That's trivial information that belongs on a Chinese-American history article.Yukirat 04:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? Expalin yourself in the same manner I've explained myselg of its value in this article. Al-Andalus 04:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It is useful in noting that the definition of white was flexible and generally was meant in the past to simply mean non-black. Btw Yukirat, you have deleted insertions of mine that I discussed above and got some consensus for (you didn't respond for a week) without providing any good rationale. I'm going to reinsert these. Also, do not call reverting to a version you disagree with vandalism. It is not vandalism unless it is unequivocally aimed toward hurting the page and deleting information, and calling such edits vandalism discourages working together and promotes edit warring. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 00:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese in "Jim Crow Mississippi"

message: Why do Patrick Stewart and Laura Bush have their pictures in the article? Surely there are available better and more readily identifiable examples of white people. I also dispute the captions which read ". . . is classified as white" on grounds that they give weight to specific conceptions of whiteness and thus are not reflective of the broader conception outlined (or ostensibly outlined) in the article. A.G. Pinkwater 14:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.  Review the edits without ANY discussion. Stop it please.Yukirat 07:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism by Al Andalus

message: There are a number of problems related to this section: I have to mention it here since my edits were reverted without explanation:
*Firstly and most importantly, there is no evidence that the inhabitants of the Pas valley are descendents of Berbers from Islamic Spain. Their genetic make up can be also the result of some paleolithic migration from North Africa. It seems more likely considering the remote part of Northern Spain in which the region is located. There are, to my knowledge, no historical documents which back up any theory on berber slaves.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed
*Secondly, the expulsion of the moriscos (a maximum of 300,000 were expelled -probably less since Moriscos in Castille had the tendency to move to different regions of the country taking up new identities) had little or no effect on the racial make up of the country. A majority of Muslims in Spain had converted to catholicism throughout the reconquest and Christian Kingdoms grew stronger. A majority of Spaniards were, in fact, originally muslim at one point. Moriscos were simply the minority which had decided to mantain their former religion. This is a cultural phenomenon and has no provable implications regarding race.
*Thirdly, the sections states that this haplotype is found in regions where sarracens or moors lived. When did Sarracens live in Italy or France (apart from a brief period in Sicily)??? This is incorrect. This explains why U6 and other Amazight genetic markers are much less common in France and the italic peninsula than in the Iberian peninsula. 
*Fourthly, since North Africans and Middle Easterners are classed as white according to this article, why is this influence mentioned as "foreign" to the supposed "white race"?  
--Ismael76 10:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: North African Influences Section

message: Not because of what the contributers explained , but because of what they revealed. What an extraordinary sense of insecurity is being projected onto issues of ethnicity! ±Ian Spackman 19:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A very interesting article which should be kept

message: You could include images of Hamid Karzai and Imran Khan.  Both are ethnic Pashtuns belonging to the same race, but one is from Afghanistan and classed as `White' in the U.S. Census whilst the other is from Pakistan and classed as `Asian' in the U.S. census, even though they belong to the same race.
:That is a good suggestion, presenting two people from the same ethnic group who are classified differently in one specific definition of "white" (the US government definition) becuase they are native to different countries (ie. the ethnic group is split by modern international borders). However, both of these are not considered "white" according to most definitions outside the official US definition. And as you see, even in the official US definition, one of those two guys already didn't make the "white" cut. Al-Andalus 03:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are representaive of "white people" in so far as the US census is concerned. Remember, there is not true or standard definition of white. If we're talking about caucasoid, well then that is a different matter, and that word does have a specific definition. However, "white" and caucasoid have never been synonymous, even though they overlap. Al-Andalus 03:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: South And Central Asians

message: What do you mean by Europeans. I am European and regard those people as white because they are. I have already said it, this is about white people in the world, not about the definition given by a group of pathetic white nationalists from the United States. White is the colloquial term for Caucasian. Neo-Nazi definitions do not have a place here. They are repugnant and so are the people who are behind them. If the view of white people in the US is the same as the one of Neo-Nazis, the only thing that it means is that they are a bunch of repugnant Neo-Nazis. Besides, if you want to speak about how a bunch of ignorant Americans who believe that they are a white nation, define white, then go to the article , white American, or create it, so that you can express all you crap there. The attempts to try and monopolize this concept at a global level are not acceptable.
As to your comments about Vicente Fox, your ignorance knows no limits. Are you an exception or just a reflection of the majority of Americans who think that they are white?. Mexico is a multiracial country. Mestizos and Amerindians make up the majority of the population, still white people make up a minority of about 10 per cent of the population, and taking into account that Mexico has a population of more that 100 million people, there are about 10 million Mexicans that are white.
About your comments about Hispanics, they are not a race, man. You have countries in Latin America, like Argentina and Uruguay that are much whiter than the United States, because the percentage of whites is much higher than in the US. If you mean Hispanics in the US, most of them are multiracial, but many of them are pure Amerindian, others pure black, others Asian and others whiter than you.
And do not insult me when you say this is all anti-white stuff. I am white, probably whiter than you, and detest how some Nazis want to abuse my race for their own petty objectives.
*No more personal attacks please, that's against Wikipedia policy (NPA).  Please stop it.  I don't know whether you are White or not, and frankly it doesn't matter, only the facts and accurate history for the article do. I am well aware that there are White, Mulatto, Amerindian, Black, and Mestizo Hispanics.  However, as many Spaniards will tell you, there is much confusion among non-Hispanic people who lump all Spanish speakers together.  Therefore, the attempt to post a photo of a mestizo or White Hispanic, who just so happens to be the past President of an overwhelmingly mestizo country is needlessly confusing and POV.  I will assume good faith that you are not trying to insert that photo just to "fool" people into believing that Mexico and Mexicans are not mostly mesitzo.  It's needlessly confusing.  Would you place a photo of Hugo Chavez on the Black article because Chavez is part-Black zambo?  No, I don't see you doing that one.  
*Also, as you also know, Europeans do not consider Arabs and North Africans to be White either, their definition is more limited than the U.S. Census defintion.  You hang your hat on the U.S. Census defintion which does not mirror social realities or the opinion of the majority of Whites.  It may be perhaps the most inclusive definition, but this is not an article about the U.S. Census definition, to be twisted in anti-White-racist fashion as you are commonly caught trying to do.  No more vandalism or ranting personal attacks, and kindly start assuming good faith.  Despite what the "U.S. Census" definition says, the MAJORITY of the Whites in the world DO NOT view the majoarity of Arabs and Middle Easterners or North Africans or South Asians as White.  So please stop this POV pushing.  Thanks.  Lastly, I'm sorry but anyone who would remove the photos of Neil Armstrong and Laura Bush, who are clearly White, has some obvious POV motivation.  Leave it be, they are White, OK?  Thanks. Removing the photos of two clearly non-objectionable White people, on this White people article, is "anti-White" POV.  Stop it.Yukirat 19:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Yukirat and "Americans?" incredible ignorance. 

message: Kindly stop deleting and reverting others' edits without discussion.  Kindly explain your edits. This has gone on long enough. Do not continue to put in anti-White POV (for instance that "Italians were lynched based on race") when this kind of stuff is hateful and false.  It was a mafia and criminal case.  Please read fully before you try to touch that section again with your blatant POV and hateful anti-European bias.  
 
Enough.  
Yukirat 04:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Continued Vandalism by Al Andalus

message: I noticed that the image of Patrick Stewart that was previously here was deleted.  This must be based on the fact that he is NOT American, Gentile, nor blond, blue eyed, nor pro-Zionist, like the `White' people dispayed! Obviously George Clooney MUST NOT BE WHITE for the same or similar reasons!
Patrick Stewart is uncontroversially White.  NO problems there.Yukirat 23:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PATRICK STEWART 

message: Of course not, why, because they are not a race, but a nationality. Americans come in all colours, shades and races. Stupid Americans, like Yukirat, should stop their propaganda. Americans themselves are very close to becoming a majority non-white country, if they are not one already, and I am sure that white Americans will not like to be called Non-White because many of their countrymen are not. If Vicente Fox is not white, because he is Mexican, then Laura Bush is not white, because she is American. Americans can try and fool people all that they want, but people are not colourblind and America is not a white country. There are people in America who are white and people who are not, like in many other parts of the world. So, if the pictures of white people must go because they are not Americans, because they are Mexicans or of any other nationality, then the pictures of white Americans must go too.
I never said Americans were a race, and furthermore I did not say that Americans are White.  Kindly stop making personal attacks.  The propagandists are those who push anti-White POV on the sections on Europeans, and then turn around and try to state that most Mexicans, North Africans, Arabs, South Asians are White.  It's absurd.  It's amazing how bad some people want to be classified as White. Yukirat 23:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are Americans white? 

message: Readers of this site, go to either Yahoo or Google IMAGES section and write in the word `Caucasoid'.  About 3 times, a famous image of a Pashtun tribesman appears FIRST. NOT an image of a blond Nordic Swede! This was a black and white photo taken in the 60s and used by anthropologist Carlton s. Coon in his book, The Living Races Of Man. This was one of five photos he used to illustrate the 5 races he identified of humans, clustering them into categories Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid, Congoid and Capoid. This was an image of a Pashtun from Pakistan and hence classed as `Asian' in the U.S. Census, Despite the fact that he is antropologically Caucasian and of Aryan origin. Why do you White racialists think this image was used and not a Northern European?
:I am assuming you are using the term Aryan in it's proper and true ethno-linguistic definition which refers to the various Iranian peoples, and not as the hijacked term which was reinvented by White European supremacists and transformed into "Aryan race" which was made synonymous with Nordic, thus disassosiating Aryan from what it originally meant. "Aryan" never had a "Nordic" meaning. Al-Andalus 23:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CAUCASOID YAHOO GOOGLE 

message: The lynching of eleven Italians in New Orleans was ethnically and racially related. The New Orlean lynch mob targeted all Italians within the jail, regardless of whether the Italians had been connected to the Mafia incident. You cannot tell me with a straight face that the lynching had no racial overtones. It was the early 1900's in the deep South, and the lynching victims were swarthy Catholic people coming to "take jobs" away from Southerners. Are you really going to convince me that the whole incident was just about the Mafia, and had nothing to do with Anti-Italianism and hatred for a darker people? If you want to throw away a whole history of discrimination and prejudice against Italian Americans, that's you're choice. But as some one who has to deal with the remnants of my people's past, as a person who has been called "dago," "guinea," and "greaseball," I will not forget that event simply because you dismiss it as purely Mafia-related.
Malcolm X was actually quoted as saying he didn't think Italians were truly "mainstream white." Regardless of whether you or I agree, that's what he said. And it's not a made-up quote by some ass trying to make you sympathize with Italians. It's real, and I think it's worth noting. 
Hey, I'm not here to say Italians are some oppressed ethnic group. I'm not some nut on a soapbox selling propaganda. All I wrote in the article is fact based. If you live in an area where there is no prejudice against any ethnic group, good for you, I hope someday I can live in your neighborhood. If you have grown up in these recent politically correct decades, and have not yet encountered racism and descrimination, good for you. Seriously. But I just want you to know that not all neighborhoods, neither hundred years ago nor today, have accepted Italians and Puerto Ricans and Middle Easterners as "white," no matter what the government says in their censuses.
*Regarding the lynching, this was an isolated case, not based on race: . Why is it that people come on to this site and cite isolated cases, quotes, and exceptions and then try to make that the rule?  It is most often anti-White bias that one sees placed here in exactly this fashion.  Italians were White upon arrival in the USA and they were not "lynched" except for this one isolated case as far as I know.  Besides the people lynched were of the anarchist brigand classes of Southern Italian immigrants.  In other words, they were trouble-makers and mafioso and the article clearly lays out the wholly unique circumstances and history of this event.  Please read this article and let's discuss.  Thanks.Yukirat 07:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Lynching and Malcolm X 

message: It is surprising how this article attracts people with racist or neo-nazi tendencies as well as people who seem to be extremely ignorant. This is not surprising since the former is the product of the latter. 
Comments like "its suprising how bad people want to be classified as white" by Yurikat and his sweeping judgements on who is and is not to be considered white make me think he is to be classed in this group of editors.
Attempts to link the white race to "western civilisation" is another example of racism/ignorance. The western civilisation is based on a number of influences: Mainly Greek, Roman and Middle Eastern. The latter is doubly important: Both through Christianity - a middle eastern religion- and through the heavy influence of Muslim Spain on the Renaissance period which was a crucial period in the development of Western civilisation. Not all "whites" have been involved in the development of this civilisation and not all those who have contributed to it have been white.
Indeed, the concept of white as a race is rather recent (19th century). It meant nothing before this period except a description of an individual person's colour of skin. This should be clearly explained on the article. 
It is argued that the white race as a concept appeared with modern 18th and 19th century colonialism as an attempt to reconcile the ideals of the enlightenment and French revolution (freedom, equality etc...) which had spread throughout Europe with the hard reality of domination and exploitation of many of the subtropical and tropical regions throughout the world (India, Africa and South East Asia) as well as the slave trade. These ideals would thus apply only to an imagined "superior" white-skinned "race" who would include those who were in position of colonial dominance and exclude those who suffered colonial subjugation. This interpretation of the "white race" was an imagined concept which has remained to this day as a baggage of the past. When looked at properly, as a concept, it falls apart since it does not exist except as an anachronistic conceptualisation which served Western European colonialism and American slavery.
--Ismael76 17:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Racism and ignorance on this article

message: The Mexican flag references and displays their people's Aztec-indian and indigenous heritage.  The Mexicans despised the European Spaniards.  Today, they use the word gringo as an insult to Americans of European-descent. Kindly stop pushing falsehoods for POV purposes.  This is an encyclopedia.  It's not an insult to say that the majority of Mexicans are non-White and are proud of their Aztec ancestry. OK? Yukirat 06:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The vast majority of Mexicans are not White

message: Where did you get the information that Argentina and Uruguay have mostly-white population? Just visit Buenos Aires or Montevideo and realize.--201.214.116.32 21:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia also doesn't stand for violations of the three revert rule and enforcing your point of view on articles, Yukirat.  Do you have any sources for your claims?  Until you show some good ones, you're going to have to stop adding a blatant, personal, POV to the article. Picaroon9288 05:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arg, Uru ? 

message: What else can we say here. No one is with you Yukirat. The only right answer as to whom is white is the following:
White is the colloquial term for Caucasian.
That is it.
Some people could say that white is in fact not a race, but a cultural concept that refers to Europeans. Ok, then Europeans are white, but we should say that it is not a race but a cultural concept then.
As to who is mixed or not, I cannot stand so much ignorance.
See here, second page: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gallgaedhil/haplo_r1b_amh_13_29.htm
Since the origins of people has always been interesting to a lot of people, now some scientists have grabbed it by the horns, and are analysing human populations scientifically, biologically, with genetic research, and what is the result?:
Many surprises¡:
1. Who is not mixed? 
Lets concentrate in Europe, can somebody tell me who is not mixed?
2. About the Southern European mixed crap.
What Southern Europeans?
Genetic research shows that there is rather a West-East divide, not a South-North divide.
3. If somebody has no idea of genetics, read this:Origins of Europeans
3. More surprises¡: It seems that the origins of most Europeans lies in Southern Europe. Oh no¡ another big surprise to those people who think it is rather in the North.
And then what happens. Europeans are a mixed of a lot of different human lineages, but which is the most frequent one? Oh¡, the one called R1b, especially in Western Europe, where the concept of being white happens to have been invented.
And then, where does it occurs most often:
Oh no, once again¡ in Spain¡¡ And where are what we might called the purest Europeans, Oh no¡¡ Let´s not talk about this¡.
In conclusiobn, what a bunch of crap one can read here. But this is not all. What happens if we see other human lineages, called Haplogroups in genetics, well you cal draw your own conclusions, but pay especial attention to the one called R1a. See it here more clearly: World Haplogroups Maps, 
It seems that this human lineage is quite common in Eastern, Northern and Central Europe, and where else? Oh no¡ in Asia, in Pakistan, in India etc.
So Yuki, or shall I say, Rat,  get an education before you come here with all your crap and ignorance. Present scientific information, we are tired of your ignorant opinions.
And I propose one thing here. The whole article should be rewritten. Right now it just reflects the ignorant views of a bunch of white Americans who want to impose their ignorance and superstions upon the world, in spite of the fact of living in a multiracial country. They should be ashamed of themselves and ashamed before their non-white fellow Americans for their lies and manipulation. And if you think I am just overreacting, just look at the US media: Just two little examples: See the last movie, Superman or the film CIS Miami. Then go and visit New York and Miami, and you will know what I mean.
*Wikipedia has a policy of no personal attacks, please review WP:NPA.  Let's see, you say "human lineage is quite common", so we're all the same.....but then you also say that "the USA is a multiracial nation".  So, which is it?  Stop contradicting yourself and exposing your ignorance.  White people know who their own people are, what their backgrounds are, what "commonly" comprises White culture and history (aka Western Civilization).  It's not that difficult, however many want to twist the definition beyond what an encyclopedia article should.  That's not right.  Discussing whether or not Lebanon, or even modern Japan, is a part of Western Civ is a worthwhile topic to discuss, but that should not negate or preclude the commonly held reference of Whites and Western Civ.  Exceptions should not become the rule here, or rule this Wikipedia article, to the extent that common information is not included.  That's all I'm saying.Yukirat 00:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop it 

message: Why do all the captions of the pictures of white people state what the particular person is according to the US census and the colloquial use of "white" in the US. Have we forgotten about the rest of the world again? Too much emphasis throughout the article on the US worldview.
--Ismael76 10:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Can the pic be uploaded to wikipedia with appropriate copyright tag? Before we do though, do realise that caucasian/caucasoid is an anthropological concept, "white" is a social concept, so anything that is stated will have to make mention of that. Al-Andalus 14:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is still too centered around American and Anglo-Saxon Conceptions

message: A few editors are trying to push anti-White POV here, hanging their hat primarily on solely on the "U.S. Census defintion" that allows for self-identification and the broadest possible categorization -- when the definition is very much more limited among United States citizens and in Europe and Australia and Russia, countries where hundreds of millions of White people live.  Within the USA, the U.S. Census defintion is not even close to representing the realities of social or common conventions, for instance Mexicans which are white according to the US Census defintion, are clearly not considered White in the USA, and Mexicans view themselves differently and take pride in their non-White amerindian roots (see: [], [], []. 
It is not accurate to push here the POV that North Africans, Mexicans, South Asians are White, beyond strictly the US Census defintion and a minority opinion.  The exceptions should not become the rule here.  Also, people are trying to categorize Afghanis, Pakistanis, and Hindus of India as White too!! and they are hanging their hat on the term once widely used in used in physical anthropology in the 19th Century and the early 20th Century caucasoid, that has fallen greatly in use over the last century.  That is POV pushing, and again it represents the minority opinion trying to become the rule for an encyclopedia article.  It is absurd to call Sri Lankans and Bangladeshis "White", although under the definition some POV pushers want to use, this is exactly what could happen, and that's non-encyclopedic as well as just plain ridiciulous. Using the term caucasoid to push Whiteness for West Asians, South Asians, and Africans is not an acceptable strategy, it's trying to make the exceptions the rule.  Thanks.Yukirat 18:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many perspectives on who is white. Some folks even assert that Jews are not white.[www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=2749617&postcount=34][www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=3220201&postcount=6][www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=3113964&postcount=12], or that indigenous peoples are not "native Americans"[www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=3113771&postcount=12]. While Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy requires that we include all significant viewpoints, fringe viewpoints, such as those found on websites like Stormfront.org, are not considered significant.  -Will Beback 20:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are saying that Stormfront is not a fringe website, or that sayin Jews aren't white is a mainstream concept? -Will Beback 22:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: My opinion does not matter, and neither does yours. Our job is to verifiably summarize relaible sources using the neutral point of view. I'm not sure what a map of genotypes in Europe tells us about genotypes in Mexico or North Africa. Is being white identical to having four genes? If so this article could be a whole lot shorter. But it's more complex than that. Let's stick to what reliable sources show, not maps on Geocities. -Will Beback 23:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one objects to images of uncontroversially "white" people, but it is useful also to have images of people who would be described as white in some circumstances but not in others. Paul B 16:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Lots of articles have eleven or more images. If they serve a purpose, then they should stay. They serve a very clear purpose. After all, this article is about racial typing on the basis of what people look like. Paul B 16:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't see this, look below. Eleven pictures is much, and they're all in a specific section (which is unnecessary), and blocking off all the edit bars. The section they're in is about genetics, too, not even classification of specific groups! — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 19:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Agreed with Yom - many articles have eleven images, but that's usually distributed throughout the article, not all in one place. More importantly, I really don't see what all these images add to the article. As Yom points out, as well, the images aren't even relevant to the section they appear in! Zetawoof(ζ) 20:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The article is being attacked by anti-White POV

message: Okay, the current images are absurd. Surely we don't need eleven images, all with lengthy captions, to illustrate the article. Discuss any images to be added here. Once one or two images have been agreed upon, then put them up. Zetawoof(ζ) 16:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one objects to images of uncontroversially "white" people, but it is useful also to have images of people who would be described as white in some circumstances but not in others. Paul B 16:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Lots of articles have eleven or more images. If they serve a purpose, then they should stay. They serve a very clear purpose. After all, this article is about racial typing on the basis of what people look like. Paul B 16:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't see this, look below. Eleven pictures is much, and they're all in a specific section (which is unnecessary), and blocking off all the edit bars. The section they're in is about genetics, too, not even classification of specific groups! — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 19:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Agreed with Yom - many articles have eleven images, but that's usually distributed throughout the article, not all in one place. More importantly, I really don't see what all these images add to the article. As Yom points out, as well, the images aren't even relevant to the section they appear in! Zetawoof(ζ) 20:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I've reworked the order of the section to reflect the reality that White people in the USA, Australia, Russia, and Europe don't view Middle Easterners, Arabs, and North Africans commonly as White.  The legal U.S. Census defintion is the exception to the norms around the world, and therefore should not be the "lead" in the article.  This info has NOT BEEN DELETED, it was moved to a more appropriate location so as to not be as misleading and POV.  Thanks.Yukirat 16:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: North Africans and Middle Easterners

message: Why is this included, under North African influences, when the sources are unreliable, it's inconclusive, and it self-contradicts itself?
"Genetic studies on Iberian populations also show that North African sequences (haplogroup U6) present values which are much higher than those generally observed in Europe, although very low levels of Haplotype U6 have also been detected in Sicily and it is extremely frequent among the Saami populations of Northern Scandinavia.3 It is difficult to establish that U6's presence is the consequence of Islam's expansion in Europe during the Middle Ages, particularly because it is more frequent in the north of the peninsula rather than in the south. It may also be the result of neolithic expansion from North Africa."
It may be that nobody can verify anything reliably with regards to this, and therefore it shouldn't be included WP:RS.Yukirat 17:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please justify this text

message: I see a lot of interest by some North African Users to claim Spain using genetic evidence. Spain, genetically speaking is one of the most European countries in Europe. More that 80% of its population can trace their ancestry to the Paleolithic inhabitants of Europe. R1b, the most common set of male genetic markers in Europe originated in Spain, and still it is the dominant set of genetic markers in Spain. If we put together Haplogroups R1b and I, both of them present almost exclusively in Europe, the result is 80%. If we take MTdna, female genetic markers, Spain again shows the most European profile. See the 2005 Macdonalds hapmap or any other hapmap:  See page 2 for male genetic markers and page 5 for female genetic markers. There are genetic relationships also between the Spanish and the Berbers. We cannot establish with precision how they happened, but the most obvious proof is Haplogroup Ex3, which is typical of Berbers, as you can see in the pie for North Africa in the obove mentioned Hapmap, but you will also see how it is present across all of Europe, and with the highest concentrations precisely not in Spain. There are of course genetic relationships among all peoples, but to try and use isolated studies while ignoring the global picture is manipulation. Spain happens to be one of the most European countries in Europe, from a genetic point of view. So, do not try to twist the data to try and show that it very North African, because that is manipulation. I respect Berbers and Arabs, but it is not the first time that I see some of them trying to claim Spain in a way that is far from being honest. P.S. You can see more about Haplogroup R1b and the Macdonald´s 2005 Hapmap in the main article for reference. I encourage anyone to provide other Global Hapmaps that state the contrary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.81.119.10 (talk • contribs) .
--------
Well the most obvious proof for this relationship is the combination of 
*E3b quite common in Iberia and the rest of Mediterranean Europe and parts of Eastern Europe with the highest concentrations in Greece.  
*Haplotype 5 which is most common in Morocco but is also very common in Iberia becoming less common as one goes further north. 
*Haplogroup U6 North African origin and only found in Iberia among European populations (as well as the Saami).
*U6a which exists only among the Berber Guanche people of the Canary islands but which has been transmitted to Europe probably through slaves from those islands or by means of intermarriage with modern canarians.
*E-M81: of North African origin, only found in Iberia and Sicily.
*Haplogroup L: of subsaharan origin and more common among Iberians than among any other European population. It is much more common among North Africans who have been subject to trans saharan contacts for a long time.
What does this tell you? Not that Iberians are less European. No one is saying that, and as you say R1b which is of pre-indoeuropean origin is dominant among Spaniards and Portuguese - even more so among Basques. 
It means, in my opinion, that Iberians have been subject to a much more recent contact with North African populations, which is indicated by the number of shared genetic markers rather than the extent of one single one. The problem with using one particular haplogroup -E3b for example- to come to a conclusions on ancestry is that there is no way of differentiating a common origin from a couple of hundred of years ago from a common origin from tens of thousands of years ago. After all, we all come from Africa originally.
The transmission of subsaharan Haplogroup L, however, (if we ignore the 15th century slave trade theory) would indicate that Iberians had contact with modern Berbers rather than proto-berbers. The rest of shared markers also point to this direction.
In fact what you say concurs with my point. Had these markers been of paleolithic or neolithic origin - as is almost certainly the case of E3b in much of the rest of Europe-, they would be much more noticeable on the Hapmap! It would have taken a genocide by Muslims on autochtonous Iberian populations to have influenced local genetic markers in a more significant way than it did. 
--Ismael76 13:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you are referring to me? I'm not north African, by the way. I was only including the information because the section existed and would not be complete without a discussion of the spread of E3b. It was probably spread to Greece and Southeastern Europe in Neolithic times with the spread of Agriculture, but Iberian and Sicilian E3b was introduced later in historic times, probably by the Moors, according to the genetic data. See Semino et. al 2004. I don't think these people are any less white, and I don't see how simply stating the numbers is manipulation, when it's identified that it's speaking solely about paternal lineages. I think you're being too defensive. If a genetic section is going to be included, then for it to be complete, there has to be a short discussion of E3b. I wouldn't really care if the section wasn't included, however, as those who fall in the definition "white" are genetically diverse. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: North African POV

message: Why is the aritcle fully protected?--Keepin it real, Baby Phat 01:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a revert war. -Will Beback 01:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It is also worth noting that it will stay protected until the warring parties can agree to edit collaboratively. -Will Beback 19:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have though you were in the right, but you still engaged in revert warring. It takes two. -Will Beback 20:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's how one learns.  I should have taken it to: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR?  What other advice would you give to stop mass reverts without discussion?Yukirat 21:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Patience. More discussion. File an RfC to bring in more editors. Seek consensus so that you can agree on the material. Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy. -Will Beback 21:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad that it was protected.  Anyways, I'd like to propose a change that an admin could make: That two of the pictures of Moroccans in the photos table at the bottom of the African Americans section be eliminated. (See discussion in header below this one)  After all, we now have four Arabs of Moroccan descent in the table, and I think the point about the general opinion of them being white or not can be made clear with two, or maybe only one, photo.  Does anyone support this change? Does anyone oppose it? If not, Will, could you make the change? Picaroon9288|ta co 23:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected?

message: Please stop talking about "caucasion" being an Anthropological concept.  Its not.  It was at one time, but science progresses.  You might as well be blurring the line between astronomy and astrology.
Read the American Anthropological Association's statement on race.  Pay careful attention to the lines, "These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective" and "physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them".  In short, you can continue talking about "caucasoid" vs. "negroid" all you want, just don't hide it behind claims of it being based on anthropology - unless you indicate that your particular grasp of the body of anthropological knowledge is grounded in something decidedly fringe. 198.97.67.59 11:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never hid behind anything, and I have consistently said that those who want to use and abuse the term "caucasoid" to include Indian/Hindus or Arabs or South Asians, etc. as "White" are being POV and hurting the truth of the article.  Caucasoid does not equal "White", I agree with you.  If we aren't going to use any genetics or physical variations (which I don't totally agree with because clearly the real world considers them), then we are left with cultural, historical, linguistic, and religious differences to consider, which is something I've said all along is appropriate also.  The Ottoman Empire was non-White on almost all levels, Western Civilization is White on almost all levels.  Some people will say: Mexicans are White because of the U.S. Census, or Hindus are White because they are cacausiods, and then turn around an revert out the link between Whites and the history of Western Civilization.  Do you see what's happening?  People are abusing terms and concepts to make the exceptions the rule, and turning around and pushing anti-White POV to revert what are today its most common definitions.  It's really quite clear what's happening here.Yukirat 18:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the AAA's statement, those who want to use and abuse the term "caucasoid" to include any gruop and exclude others are being POV.  "If we aren't going to use any genetics or physical variations (which I don't totally agree with because clearly the real world considers them)" source?  "we are left with cultural, historical, linguistic, and religious differences to consider", yes but even those are regionally variable.  "The Ottoman Empire was non-White on almost all levels, Western Civilization is White on almost all levels." source?  "People are abusing terms and concepts to make the exceptions the rule", well, what is the rule?  What is the checklist by which I can say "this is white, this is not"?  If you can't tell me what the rule is, then we don't know what are exceptions.  "pushing anti-White POV" please give a checklist to tell what an anti-White POV (as oppossed to, say, an anti-Black POV) is and isn't as well.198.97.67.59 19:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An example of anti-Black POV would be if I went to the page on African-American and made a pest of myself by claiming that White South African immigrants to the USA are "African-Americans" and stuff like that.  I could argue that one around ad infinitum, however I think that's wrong and pushing a POV based upon an exception to the norm.  Come on.  Seriously.  What was White about the Ottoman Empire and what wasn't White about the history of Western Civ?  You prove your point.  This is getting ridiculous.  Stop playing games.  P.S. Funny how on the African American page there aren't images of 4 Moroccans and only 1 Black person, after all North Africans are "African" aren't they, and why would anyone need to see more than one photo of a black person? Yukirat 20:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: White South African Immigrants -are- African-American.  "What was White about the Ottoman Empire..?"  I don't know.  What wasn't White about it?  What does "White" mean?  I mean, you haven't explained that yet.  You think the point is obvious.  If its so obvious, you ought to do better than reply "Come on. Seriously."  You ought to be able to make your point and back it up.71.74.209.82 20:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You say: White South African Immigrants -are- African-American.  Fine, you go then to the page African-American post 4 pictures of non-black South Africans that now live in the USA, remove all the other images, and say "We only need to see one black African-American, because we all know what a black person looks like, what the article really needs is to cover the boundary/controversial issues".  Go ahead.  Will, and everyone else here will back you up.  Spend your time there if you think that's the right thing to do, seriously, but stop wasting ours.  Yukirat 20:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  You say: "What does "White" mean? ...you haven't explained that yet.  Yes, it's been covered ad nauseum.  It means "mostly" and "commonly" people of indigenous European descent.  Not always, but the vast majority of times as it is used in 2006 in the English-speaking world.  It does not equal Caucasoid, and it doesn't overlap with Mexicans, North Africans, Middle Easterners, Arabs, South Asians, Turks, Hindus, East Asians, except for a minority of these inhabitants, mostly in particular "legal" circumstances (ie. US Census) which are "not generally" agreed to in social or colloquial circles.  (see also discussion below under "Sources" header.  Thanks.Yukirat 20:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I find posting pictures on Wiki to be too much work.  If the best you can do in defining white is to say that it 'mostly' and 'commonly' refers to 'people of indigenous European descent', then you have to spend a great deal of time defining the barriers.  I mean, by 'mostly' do you mean indigenous Europeans who are taller than 4'5" tall?  Indigenous Europeans who are less than 330lbs in weight?  Indigenuous Europeans who don't have red hair?  Indigenous Europeans who aren't left handed?  Europeans who aren't psychologists?  I mean, what does 'mostly' and 'commonly' mean?71.74.209.82 22:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Many images already exist on Wikipedia, you don't have to upload them, you can just link to them.  Regarding the meanings of the words 'commonly' and 'mostly', you should know what those words mean if you are educated in the English language. I don't mean to be a smart-aleck, but you could look them up in the dictionary too. They are used, as you know, in our language every day (they are commonly used!) so why would you have a problem with them or not understand what they mean??? Yukirat 23:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you find this confusing?  "The designation Caucasian was first used in the 19th and early 20th centuries by scholars who believed that this subdivision originated in Caucasia, a region of southeastern Europe. Caucasians are now more commonly known as the white race, or as people of European extraction. The center of the white population is usually considered to be Europe and the Americas."Yukirat 23:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, scholars once believed "caucasion" refered to a race.  Now they realize that 'race' as a biological concept has no meaning (see the AAA statement I referenced above).  Yes, what scholars used to wrongly identify as the caucasion race is now wrongly identified as the white race.  I think that's all clear.  Do you find the statement by mainstream modern scholars, ""physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them" confusing?71.74.209.82 23:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If we are all the same, then why is "celebrating diversity" so important?  I know what you are saying, but you also have to help here.  How would you define White people?  Please do not say that White people "do not exist" because then we would also have to delete every single page on Wikipedia related to these subjects for others too.  How do you define it, or think it should be defined here?Yukirat 02:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before I post about how I define White people, I want to see your answer to the question I posed to you earlier.  You wrote, "The Ottoman Empire was non-White on almost all levels, Western Civilization is White on almost all levels."  What was your source and/or reasoning for that?71.74.209.82 03:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The Ottomans and Europeans were bitter enemies.  Ottomans hated Europe and Western & Eastern Christendom and vice versa.  They share zero cultural, linguistic, historical, or religious histories, and they share no common ancestral linkage, and they have markedly differnent hapolgroups and mDNA's.Yukirat 07:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the sake of the arguement, we'll assume that's true (its not, but I'll ignore that for now).  And we'll assume its somehow relevant.  The Ottoman Empire was in the Caucasus region.  You've kept talking about how the Caucasus region was where the whites originated.  Why weren't the Ottomans white and the Europeans non-white?71.74.209.82 11:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never said that the "Caucusus region" defines the term White. It doesn't. That's old line anthropological thinking (as has been pointed out numerous times) in the Discussion. What is the title of this section? Isn't that exactly what you said to start it? I think you get confused often. Please reread from the top, before you quote people incorrectly. Kindly help us, how do you define the term?Yukirat 19:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: old line anthropological thinking is that race exists biologically.  So, you don't believe in a biological basis for race?  So, why do you define it as connected to Europe?  I'm bored with this.  You still haven't given a real definition of your own for "white".  "mostly European" isn't a real definition as I explained before (what does "mostly" mean?).  I will give you my definition right after I see yours.71.74.209.82 00:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anthropological BS

message: Well, unfortunately it is. Why? Because it has been used too often with these connotations, and also because White Supremacists continue hammering the term all the time, and also because there is a long tradition of using it in racist contexts. This fact has already been realized in many countries. In Europe, the term is not very commonly used to refer to people anymore, never officially. People usually use nationality. In almost no European country will you now find an officcial or unofficial document in which people will classify themselves as white or not (Well, there is an interesting exception: in documents of Nazi-like political parties or organizations you will). Probably only in the United Kingdon. It is certainly used in the US. I think it is also used in Australia. What does it mean? The Anglo-Saxon world has not realized the obvious: that the native place of Europeans does not use the term, in any case never officially, to classify people. Maybe the Anglo-Saxon world is still a remnant of 19th and 20th centuries racist views, views that continue to be entrenched in their minds and do not realize that they are beginning to look disgustingly racist to the majority of the world. The term "white" is inevitably linked to racism, because terms come to mean in a cultural and linguistic context and unfortunately this context has been just racist in too many occassions. What is sad is that some governments and cultures continue to use it as if it did not have those connotations. What would people think if in Germany, people would have to check since their early childhood in school concepts like Aryan or Jew?. What is being perpetuated in those countries with the official support of the government is a crime against humanity, altough they try to conceal the infamy of such policy under arguments like using it for positive discrimination or to fight racism. They are perpetuating racism themselbves ingraining in the minds of chindren that they are fundamentaly different since they go to school, that some of them are Horses and some Zebras, like an American user here has expressed.
In my opinion the article should deal directly with this issue. That the term itself is a racist creation and that it should be dammed. If there are people who identify so much with it, they should begin to reconsider their position. Many of them are possibly not racist, by they have been certainly brainwashed by the culture in which they live, like many Germans identified with the term Aryan during the 3rd Reich.
:"White" is automatically racist because it has been used too often with these connotations?  What is "too often"?  Where's that line?  Is Christianity automatically hate-mongering because it is so often used to prop up those kinds of politics?  Is feminism automatically sexist because it is so often associated with those politics?  
This is nuts.  But I appreciate you providing us with a good example of politically correct insanity.71.74.209.82 19:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To the anon that didn't sign his post, what would you call a person that is 1/8 English, 1/4 Irish, 1/4 Polish, 1/8 Dutch, and 1/4 Norwegian?  The vast majority of White people in the USA and Australia are of mixed European descent.  They are White, however the term European American is starting to be used.  But the vast majority of people use the term "White".  It's used hundreds of millions of times in thousands of different circumstances.  Lastly, as the previous section illustrates, if the term "White" is racist in a pejorative sense (which it is not), then why do almost 50% of Hispanics and Mexican-Americans willingly choose to self-identify with it??Yukirat 19:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In homogenous societies people focus on smaller differences much more, but in heterogenous societies like the USA these smaller differences are pushed under the rug in favor of much more apparant differences.  In ethnically homogenous Italy, more emphasis would be placed on family clans and regional origin. In Europe, where everyone is European the term White would have less meaning.  Much more meaning would be given to national origin, since everyone is white.  Where heterogeneous backgrounds exist, less emphasis is placed on minutia.  In the USA which contains all national origin groups, readily apparant differences such as skin color are considered relevant.  The fact that Europe has phased out the term "White" does not show that it is meaningless.  Their conception of Whiteness would have no social meaning when everyone around them would be considered white.--Dark Tichondrias 16:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  White as automatically racist! 

message: What I want to know is: What race claims Mariah Carey?
Also, how is "white" inherently racist? I though it was a color. (clear: a lack of color)
Also, why are "white" people white? Lack of Sunshine? Ya need to get out and get some sunshine people, it's good for ya!
Speaking of sunshine...I think it (as a factor in race) should be addressed. Our environment creates noticeable changes in one's appearance. I think black people's dark skin is directly correlated to having come from the hottest regions on planet Earth. Many ancient cultures worshiped the Sun (or placed it in a prominent role). These people tend to have dark or tan skin complexions. I think this is important! 
All life on planet Earth is influenced by the Sun. Differences between us (people) may have something to do with varying degrees of sun exposure. 
2c me 11:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mariah Carey? Sunshine? 

message: We over in the Black People article are also locked out. And we in the Black People article are also discussing, debating, rather, how much of India is Black. I am sure we have a big following of "India is white" in this group. But there is an equally large following of "India is black" as well. Shall we accept the fact that India has a few hundred million black people and a few hundred white people and a few hundred mixed people? Or are we going to simply pretend that the light skinned indians are "as good as white" and the dark skinned indians are "just darkskinned, but not really black"?  --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What a coiencidence

message: This is sort of irrelevant, but has anyone noticed Indian religious art? There are buddhist paintings that show a rainbow collection of gods. There are black, brown, red, tan, pink and white gods. (I like this pantheistic vision).
Also, there are religious paintings of the goddess as black, and the male god as brown or even white, coupled in union. Doesn't this seem to imply India's acknowledgement of her muti-racial history / background? 
2c me 07:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For reasons which escape me, my earlier post here was deleted.  Please don't delete comments in the discussion page which you didn't write (whoever did this, I'm not pointing fingers).  Its rude and, I'm guessing, against Wiki policy.
Anyway, here's what I wrote in reply to the post by Zaphnathpaaneah which precedes this, "::That's because race doesn't exist biologically AND because our concepts of medicine (and, by extension, biology) are metanarratives of the perceiver's own self (cf Donna Harraway's "Primate Visions").198.97.67.56 11:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a picture of early Buddha. In a modern American context, he would not be considered of African-American descent.  And I doubt that those Germanic tribes would have self-identified as "white".198.97.67.56 11:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is an earlier 10th century sculpture of Buddha.  as you can see his hair is curly. Obviously he is not african-american, why would you even create controversy by stating such an obvious fact as something I am arguing against when I certainly make no absurd comment nor imply. And Germanic tribes self-identifying as white is not the issue. I said no one is going to say that they were NOT white. In other words I do not expect you or anyone to say these words the Visigoths were not white. The Celts were not white etc. Not without a qualifier before hand. --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pantheon of Gods 

message: The use of the term white is directly racist. The only reason this fact is not understood is because these pages are full of brainwashed people coming from Anglo-Saxon countries who think it is normal to classify people that way. All that derives from the strong influences of Racist theories in these countries, especially the US, during the 19th adn 20th centuries. Historically the US has been extremely racist. Segregation was in place there until very recently. The process is very simple: abolition of slavery, abolition of segregation? Well, not fully. What are the consequences of such racist policy?: to try and maintain social segregation using terms like white, black, hispanic, etc., imposing it in the American mind, in the media, in all types of documents, in schools, in everyday life. I doubt very much that this is going to survive for long, but it is still very powerful in the US. There are very few places in the world where people are so obssessed with classifying people like that. The funny thing is that Americans have been so brainwashed that they see it as normal, even those who classify themselves in other groups. The term "white" to refer to people has obvioulsy  some racial base, though scientifically very diffuse, but the way the term is used and has been used invalidates it as a neutral word to refer to people. 
The way the term White has been used in the US and continues to be used is a banal attempt to try and isolate groups, to try and ingrain in their minds that they belong to different groups, an absurd and spurious attempt to try and maintain social segregetion that seems politically correct to the Americans, in a country where the multiracial population is growing stronger and stronger and where these classification attempts are becoming more and more stupid and embarrassing. 
One simple example of how vicious and racist the term is in the US is the one-drop rule. Though some Americans say that this rule is something of the past, it is still ingrained in their minds and everyone knows it: Example: A person whith a "white" father and a "back" mother is automatically classified as "black" in the US by their fellow countrymen. Obviously that person is exactly as white as black, but the American mind will immediatly classify that person that way: Why? That person is not white anymore because he/she is not "pure", so the person is "rejected" from the group. At the same time, that person is accepted much more easily in the "black" community. Everyone knows that this example is truth and it reveals the extremly racist mind of the American man who continues to strife for some stupid racial purity keeping people apart, even those who are not deemed purely white, in some banal attempt to keep the "white" group untouched. Poor devils!. They must be suffering a lot in a country that is becoming increasingly multiracial.
-----------------------------------------
-------------------------
::So, your point is that race ('whiteness'/'blackness'/whatever) is a fundamentally racist concept?   that I think that's true.  But its also a reality that it is a concept that people use and, so, shouldn't be ignored71.74.209.82 19:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey buddy, haven't you ever heard about "Celebrating Our Diversity"?  I think you'd have a tough time telling the millions of non-AngloSaxon people that think our diversity is wonderful that their views are racist or should be eliminated.
Can this be moved up under similar Discussion heading 46.4 "White as automatically racist!"?  Any admns?  Thanks. Yukirat 17:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It is indeed strange, because many people who believe the USA should be a big melting pot, also believe in celebrating diversity.  Interesting dichotomy.  Who knows? Yukirat 18:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  White is directly racist, of course! 

message: I am reading this discussion about Turks. 
1. Turks are white. In Europe, no one considers them as non-white. The problem is that we have here an ignorant American with extremenly stupid ideas.
2. People have been using here genetics to say who is white or not. Well here you have this Cavalli-Sforza map. According to his map, the map of an authority in genetic anthropology, Turks are not only white (white people do not only live in Europe), but they also are European, from a genetic point of view.
3. It is interesting, how acoording to his famous map, some Europeans, of whom there is no discussion here, fall outside the range that is considered European from a genetic point of view, like Finns and many Swedes and Norwegians.
4. If you can read a map, here you have it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cavalli-SforzaMap.jpg 
Note how important areas of the Middle East also fall within the European genetic boundaries, colored in green.
And anyone who uses those white supremacist sources to argue who is white or not should be ban from here and I urge administrators to do so.
We are speaking about an anthropological issue, therefore only traditional anthropology or new genetic anthropology should be used if this article is to be taken seriously.
: There's debate about who's considered "White". To use pseudo-scientifical and arbitrary grouping to define who is White is ridiculous. You don't cite any sources that claim Turks are White, so it remains a matter of opinion.
: )--Ryodox 20:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC
::The anonymous IP User argues that traditional and genetic anthropology prove that the Turks are white when they do not.  The anonymous IP User's argument that anthropology only means traditional anthropology or genetics fails to include linguistic and cultural anthropology.  Even if we constrict "anthropology" to the two fields anonymous IP User feels like acknowledging, we have disagreement which does not argue for anonymous IP User's point.  Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza has been noted for using a priori defined races, then grouping them genetically.  Even though it is true that some populations are more genetically related than others, his races are nothing but his POV.  Traditionally, many anthropologists have defined race differently.  These two fields only illustrate that opinions on race vary, but do not prove that the Turks are White.--Dark Tichondrias 11:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dark T, don't just make vague comments that I'm ignoring cultural anthropology, let's start bringing some intellectual content to the subject (god knows its past time to do that).  Just how much have you studied the work of Cavalli-Sforza?
You see, I actually studied Anthropology for four years at the University of Kentucky (and my focus among the four subdivisions was cultural anthropology - which makes your claim that I'm ignoring it curious) and have taken graduate level courses in the anthropology of race and medical anthropology.  I'm eager to have someone with which to debate actual intellectual content on this subject.  Maybe you are that person?  If so, stop holding back.  It will be good for the article, too, as actual intellectual content will require sources instead of unsupported claims as has been the overwhelming majority of what has appeared here in the talk page to date.71.74.209.82 22:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have been talking about who is white an who is not when we should be talking about what is verifiable and not - what sources can we point to to say what 'white' is.  By that requirement, we need to be focused on sources as judged by Wikipedia standards and what they  have to say about 'whiteness'.  "According to his map, the map of an authority in genetic anthropology, Turks are not only white (white people do not only live in Europe), but they also are European, from a genetic point of view."  I think you need to read the article you pointed to, not just look at the pretty pictures.71.74.209.82 21:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turks are white, of course. 

message: Could someone with an account archive this page?  Its getting really long and the threads in it are getting tangled.71.74.209.82 11:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving