|
Post by alexandrian on Mar 27, 2005 2:01:08 GMT -5
Again, you guys in here keep using 'Caucasoid' as a euphemism for white. The majority of Egypt's inhabitants were not white and did not look like Northern and Southern Europeans. You forget that the Egyptians depicted themselves as disntinct from both Europeans, Nubians, and Semites. Besides the 25th dynasty Nubians, there were black and or mixed Egyptian rulers, don't try to write off the native black Egyptian rulers. Semites for the most part look distinct from Europeans, especially Bedouins, so you can't say all Semites are white. Fine, then just replace the word "white" with the word Caucasian. Not all Mongoloids are yellow, not all Negroids are pitch-black, and not all Caucasoids are white in complexion.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 27, 2005 2:20:59 GMT -5
When you want to talk about race, white is only useful if it is used as a synonym for Caucasoid. That's why white nationalists are stupid. There's no such thing as a European race that ends as soon as one enters West Asia or North Africa. There is only a Caucasoid race, a white race that before colonial times spanned Europe, West Asia, North Africa, the Iranian Plateau, India, and Turkestan. Europe is a continent. Not a people. White = Caucasoid. We here at Dodona never use the social meaning of the word which is the one white nationalists promote.
The same can be said of the term "black," a synonym for Congoid. Australoids and Capoids can have the same skin color as Congoids, but I never refer to them as black races. They are only "black" in the literal sense of being of darker color.
So, you are right in a sense, TopDog. White is a misnomer and some would argue that it fetishizes the fair-complected. I just like to think of the term as being relative, in that Caucasoids, no matter if they are light or dark, are generally lighter than other races.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Mar 27, 2005 3:04:19 GMT -5
When you want to talk about race, white is only useful if it is used as a synonym for Caucasoid. No it isn't, it confuses and obfuscates things. There is no way an Indian and an European are the same race, as in being white. Caucasoid is skeletal, white refers to skin coloration and social constructions. Not all of those people are white, Indians, some Iranian, North Africans, and Arabs are not white. A white person is Caucasoid, but Caucasoid doesn't always equal white. Congoid is a misnomer just as confusing as white is for caucasoid. Les and more Negroid pronounced fits sub-Saharan populations better than Congoid, since no modern race came from the area of the Congo Basin. That goes the same for people called 'Caucasian'. almost none came from the Caucasus Mountains. Southern Indians are darker than most Africans.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 27, 2005 3:22:24 GMT -5
Alright, here we go.
TopDog, you're wasting your time by arguing semantics here. When we speak of the white race, we speak of the Caucasoid race. It is really that simple. If it confuses you, just read "white" as Caucasoid. Because all it is in the longrun is shorthand. It's a lot easier to say a one-syllable word than it is a three-syllable one. Caucasian is just as big a misnomer, too, but these are the accepted names. We can't change them. They're already established and ingrained in the literature and terminology of the times.
Yes, Iranians, North Africans, Orientalids, and Nordindids are of the white race. All that means is they are Caucasian. It doesn't mean they are literally the color white. That would be ridiculous. Then nobody but pasty Englishmen would fit the bill. Southern Europeans aren't physically white either most of the time, does that mean we should cease to call them white people? Of course not. In racial matters white may have started out as a color term, but it isn't anymore. Caucasoids didn't originate from the Caucasus mountains as Blumenbach might have implied, but the term stays put anyway. It's too widespread to get rid of. Congoid was coined by Coon for one very specific reason: a.) Negroid is confusing because races (Khoisan, aborigines, black Africans) who are not related to each other have all erroneously been lumped together as Negroid by earlier writers and b.) because he wanted to distinguish Africans from Capoids and Australoids but Negroid for the reason above didn't jive with him. He did use the word "negroid," though, but for the most part he didn't use the word when referring to the black race of Africa in general. I don't know why he decided to go with the Congo. Maybe he thought the region was a central area in the same way Blumenbach thought the Caucasus was central.
I don't buy the dark Caucasoid theory for southern Indians anymore than I do for East Africans. The Caucasoid looks and dark skin of southern Indians (Dravidians) is the product of hybridization between Caucasoid Nordindids and Australoid Veddoids. They are by no means pure Caucasoids anymore than a Somali is pure Caucasoid.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Mar 27, 2005 6:31:18 GMT -5
Alright, here we go. TopDog, you're wasting your time by arguing semantics here. When we speak of the white race, we speak of the Caucasoid race. It is really that simple. If it confuses you, just read "white" as Caucasoid. Because all it is in the longrun is shorthand. It's a lot easier to say a one-syllable word than it is a three-syllable one. Its not a matter of semantics and I will never accept confusion and obfuscation as a matter of convenience. not everyone defined as 'Caucasoid' is white, I'm pretty sure Indians[not the stormfront Aryanist types with deluded minds] do not consider themselves as white men, the same with Arabs. Thats a fact and not a matter of 'shorthand' or whats more convenient. White cannot always be substituted for Caucasoid. Stereotypes and prejudice are likewise ingrained and established, should we not change them? Caucasoid isn't universally accepted as an euphemism white. Caucasian and its more restricted synonym Caucasoid belong to the system of racial classification proposed by European anthropologists in the 18th and 19th centuries. These terms refer to a broad group of peoples indigenous to Europe, western Asia, northern Africa, and much of the Indian subcontinent. Caucasian and Caucasoid are in some ways the most problematic of the traditional racial terms, not so much for any offensive character as for their widespread misuse as a synonym for “white” or “European.” Many of the peoples traditionally included in this category, such as the Berbers of North Africa and the various Hindu and Muslim peoples of northern India, have skin color noticeably darker than most Europeans and as such are not usually considered to be white. Obviously they are not European either. Yet in casual usage, in police reports, and even in many dictionaries, Caucasian is often used interchangeably with those two terms. You should take care to avoid this imprecision.
Caucasian, but not Caucasoid, is also a geographic term referring to the Caucasus (the mountainous region between the Black and Caspian Seas for which the racial category was named) or to any of its indigenous peoples including Azerbaijanis, Armenians, and Ossetians. When using Caucasian in this sense you may wish to provide an initial context so as to avoid any ambiguity; instead of a Caucasian people you might include a phrase such as a people inhabiting (or from) the Caucasus.www.bartleby.com/64/C006/015.html#CAUCASIANCAUIf it doesn't mean so, why call them white or members of the white race? Thats only misleading people. They may be Caucasoid, but not white. Coon was so smart he called this Nilote a 'Congoid' ![](http://www.saintmarys.edu/~rjensen/congoid.GIF) So much for clearing up confusion between Africans[insert rolling eyes here]. Australoid and San aren't Negroid so I see no reason to use the term Congoid equally. Congoid is equally as problematic as Caucasoid since neither Caucasoids nor Negroids have an origin in the Caucasus nor Congo. You must be saying 'Caucasoid Nordinids' because of the blondness of some Australoid peoples, their blondness has nothing to do with Nordinids. Somalias are mostly Elongated East Africans slightly to moderately mixed with Southern Arabians.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 27, 2005 8:15:01 GMT -5
Your thinking is as obnoxious as I'd like to think mine is most of the time. Great job! Its not a matter of semantics and I will never accept confusion and obfuscation as a matter of convenience. not everyone defined as 'Caucasoid' is white, I'm pretty sure Indians[not the stormfront Aryanist types with deluded minds] do not consider themselves as white men, the same with Arabs. Thats a fact and not a matter of 'shorthand' or whats more convenient. White cannot always be substituted for Caucasoid. Does the technicality eat at your heart that badly? The white race IS a synonym for the Caucasian race and there is nothing you, I, or anybody else can do about it, you crazy buffoon. If you don't want to use white in the sense of Caucasian then you might as well do away with the term "white race" altogether, because then the term is useless. And I couldn't give two shits less if Arabs or Caucasoid Indians don't consider themselves white. Hell, I know many Italians who don't consider themselves white. That doesn't make it so. They've just happened to buy into the Nordicist Eurocentric idea of elder days that the white race is limited to pasty Europeans. Stereotypes and prejudice are likewise ingrained and established, should we not change them? Caucasoid isn't universally accepted as an euphemism white. Caucasian and its more restricted synonym Caucasoid belong to the system of racial classification proposed by European anthropologists in the 18th and 19th centuries. These terms refer to a broad group of peoples indigenous to Europe, western Asia, northern Africa, and much of the Indian subcontinent. Caucasian and Caucasoid are in some ways the most problematic of the traditional racial terms, not so much for any offensive character as for their widespread misuse as a synonym for “white” or “European.” Many of the peoples traditionally included in this category, such as the Berbers of North Africa and the various Hindu and Muslim peoples of northern India, have skin color noticeably darker than most Europeans and as such are not usually considered to be white. Obviously they are not European either. Yet in casual usage, in police reports, and even in many dictionaries, Caucasian is often used interchangeably with those two terms. You should take care to avoid this imprecision.
Spare me the history lesson. I already know it. Backwards and forwards. Look, man, there is nothing wrong with the term "white" as a synonym for Caucasian. You've got to accept that. If you think "white" and "Caucasian" are just too huge of misnomers to be acceptable, do you have any ideas on what to call the race of Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, Turkestan, and northern India? Yeah, I didn't think so. There is nothing else to call them. "Caucasoid" and "white" are too widely accepted to change. Coon was so smart he called this Nilote a 'Congoid' ![](http://www.saintmarys.edu/~rjensen/congoid.GIF) You, know, you're not only a numbskull sometimes, but also a real ass. What's wrong with calling the black African race (that embraces not only Nilotes, but Sudanids, Bantids, forest Negroes, and pygmies) "Congoid?" You've got any ideas about what to call them? Yeah, I didn't think so. Congoid is an excellent term and I applaud Coon, who was way more articulate than you on these matters, for coining it. So much for clearing up confusion between Africans[insert rolling eyes here]. Australoid and San aren't Negroid so I see no reason to use the term Congoid equally. Congoid is equally as problematic as Caucasoid since neither Caucasoids nor Negroids have an origin in the Caucasus nor Congo. No, but the terms don't indicate origin. They are descriptive, used to discriminate the major races from each other. Ever heard of the expression "lack of a better term?" You must be saying 'Caucasoid Nordinids' because of the blondness of some Australoid peoples, their blondness has nothing to do with Nordinids. What in the hellfire are you talking about? Guess what, Mike, the blondness of Australoids has absolutely nothing to do with Caucasoids! No shit. Where do you get off thinking I would believe something ridiculous like that? What I said was southern Indians are a hybrid race of Nordindid and Veddoid. I didn't say anything about blond Australoids, who as far as I know only exist in the Solomon Islands (could be other enclaves, not an expert on the subject).
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 27, 2005 9:43:53 GMT -5
Nilotes like showin' off what their mamas gave 'em (and I would know, I'm a Maasai!): ![](http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/muzeum/images/Afryka/500/nuba_mtn72_1.JPG)
|
|