Posted: 10/17/2007 3:06:38 AM
|Could we not just refer for them as Asians of a non oriental decent?|
Posted: 12/1/2007 9:48:17 PM
|Well, I am Greek, Turk, Libyan and Brasilian, and I DONT consider myself "Caucasian", and neither do most Caucasians I know consider me one of their kind.|
Years of being singled out and treated differently led me to the point I am today as someone who quite doesnt fit into "Caucasian" North America. I accept the "Middle-Eastern" moniker readily. Unfortunately, there STILL are stark differences in races and ethnic groups.
As far as the OP's black friend realising that we are not Cacausian, I applaud his realistic view. Most blacks I have had contact with look at race in a black and white binary spectrum only. If you are not black, then you are white to most of them. There is no other view.
In actuality, many blacks have more Caucasian "white" blood in them than I do. I am a shade darker than Beyonce`, for example, but she is considered black, while I would certainly be lumped into the white category by her, I bet, even though I have North African blood. That is just plain wrong to me, so yes, call me Middle-eastern, because I am certainly not Caucasian enough to mainstream North America.
Posted: 12/2/2007 12:59:50 AM
|Mmmm...yeah. Because it's not like the Caucasus Mountains aren't in Turkey or anything.|
Regardless of skin color, etc, the overall classification is valid. North Africans tend to be Caucasian, and this race has historically extended from Europe and North Africa, east through the Middle East to India. The stereotype of "white" is a European perspective, but the term "caucasian" refers to what is more or less the center of the race's distribution. Mongoloids tended to be restricted east of the mountains surrounding China, and down the southeast Asian peninsula. Past mixing is apparent in some areas, such as Kazakhstan, where populations may normally look Asian, with occasional Scandinavian type occuring. Australasia has its own ancient race, though the distinction is often questioned. South of the Atlas Mountains of Africa, there are many races. Lumping them together as "negroid" conceals the fact that there are more genetic and morphological differences between them than there are between , for instance, Caucasians and Mongoloids. Caucasians are only "white" in a relative sense, and "lily white" does not apply to most of this group. The racial distinctions are mostly interesting from an academic perspective. In practice, people refer to themselves more often by ethnic or religious group, or nationality, and these things often overlap. I can't see that "race" is all that important in most circumstances, apart from its misuse. Mind you, discrimination and intolerance are certainly not restricted to racial questions. Consider the hate that has often existed between Serbs and Croats: they differ mainly in where they live, their religion, and their alphabet. They speak the same language [don't tell them that] and have more or less the same ethnic background. Those who hate or discriminate aren't interested in what they have in common, they will only single out the differences
Posted: 12/2/2007 9:41:06 AM
|But in the real world dealing with the vast majority of real people on this very real white continent, I am middle eastern.|
White people just dont get it. They were never subject to this at any point in their lifetime. We can argue semantics all day, but at the end of that day, I am classified differently than Mr. Germano-Anglo. That is it, in a stereotypical nutshell, with or without scientific notation. That is perhaps why the OP's black friend sees it in this perspective also. The classifications have socially morphed and THAT is what you/we deal with in our lifetime. Any sanitary reference from page 263 in some textbook isnt relevent, at least to me.
As I am getting the crap slapped out of me in an alley by skinheads, I am quite sure that claiming "fellow caucasian" will not cause them to cease and desist.