|
Post by Crimson Guard on Sept 8, 2005 17:15:38 GMT -5
<<White, European, Western, Caucasian, or what? Inappropriate labeling in research on race, ethnicity, and health R Bhopal and L Donaldson Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Medical School, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, England. r.s.bhopal@ncl.ac.uk The request for scientifically appropriate terminology in research on race, ethnicity, and health has largely bypassed the term White. This and other words, such as Caucasian, are embedded in clinical and epidemiological discourse, yet they are rarely defined. This commentary analyzes the issue from the perspective of the epidemiology of the health of minority ethnic and racial groups in Europe and the United States. Minority groups are usually compared with populations described as White, Caucasian, European, Europid, Western, Occidental, indigenous, native, and majority. Such populations are heterogeneous, the labels nonspecific, and the comparisons misleading. Terminology that reflects the research purpose-for examples, reference, control, or comparison--is better (unlike White, these terms imply no norm, allowing neither writers nor readers to make stereotyped assumptions about the comparison populations. This paper widens the debate on nomenclature for racial and ethnic groups. Many issues need exploration, including whether there is a shared understanding among the international research community of the terms discussed.>> www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/88/9/1303I thinks its one of those cases where no one is ever satisfied...
|
|
|
Post by MC anunnaki on Sept 9, 2005 2:20:33 GMT -5
Yup, we'll debate what's white until the end of time or until someone manages to prove that non-European Caucasoids are completely different race!
|
|
|
Post by futureairman on Sept 9, 2005 20:52:36 GMT -5
I saw a picture of Mike Connors, are you kidding I wouldnt consider him white. I would guess he is Southern Italian or Sicilian with his thick black eyebrows and hair. And I used to think Andre Agassi was half white, half black then I found out he is Armenian a few years ago so I never thought he was white.
|
|
mmmkay
Full Member
Internet Philosophiser, Leftist Hero
Posts: 127
|
Post by mmmkay on Sept 10, 2005 18:03:18 GMT -5
I go by geographical clines more so than races. I agree that arabs and other middle eastern groups are'nt "white" (or caucasoid if you prefer) .But I don't necessarily think somalis and ethiopians are "black" either, they are their own group, but have many similarities to other afircan groups, like many distinct groups in africa, mainly because africa is the cradle of mankind will you see such diverisity, so I'm not sure if this would apply to other regions and sub-groups. Nevertheless, arabs are clearly distinct.
Irano-afgans interestingly, are very white-looking. So since they *look* white I classify them as white. I think my system is simple enough. Whatever you look like, you are.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Sept 10, 2005 18:42:46 GMT -5
Futureairman, You're clearly confusing "white" with "Nordic". You think that anyone who is not Nordic is not Caucasoid. Like in your last post, you said something like, "He doesn't look white. He looks Sicilian"--wholly ignoring the fact that Sicilians--as Caucasoids--are white. Stop limiting the Caucasoid race. Nordics represent .00001% of the Caucasoid race. They don't define the race because they're not even numerically relavant. The very term "Caucasoid" comes from the very un-Nordic peoples of the Caucus mountain range, who a German anthropologist thought were proto-typical of the entire race. It's interesting that the German didn't define "whiteness" by German looks (as you do). He defined it by what was most typical--and he used the people of the Caucus region as the analogue; and guess what: They're typically olive-skinned, black-haired, short and furry. Not one iota Nordic. 70% of all Caucasoids look like that, while only about 1% of Caucasians look like Norwegians. Go from Iran to the Middle East to Greece, Italy, Spain, Romania, Southern France--and people look far closer to the Caucasians than they do to the Swedes. Even in lily-white England, dark types flourish, and were in fact the aboriginal people before the Saxons showed up. Stop limiting the white race. I hope to God that you don't tell a dark-skinned Vietnamese person that he's not "Mongoloid" because he's not as pink as a Korean. Or that you don't tell a yellowish-brown Zulu that he's not "negroid" because some Kenyan is blacker. There's variety within racial groups. Deal with it.
|
|
mmmkay
Full Member
Internet Philosophiser, Leftist Hero
Posts: 127
|
Post by mmmkay on Sept 10, 2005 19:23:40 GMT -5
If there is so much variety within it, then it is not a racial group, they are distinct.
East africans (horn) are their own group, Nordics are their own group, middle-easterners are their own group. Clines and regional groupings matter more than "races", which are too broadly defined. Middle-easterners and arabs are not "white", they are their own people.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Sept 11, 2005 0:23:23 GMT -5
Mmmkay, Sounds like you're confusing the concept of "race" and "subrace". A race is a large umbrella heading--subraces are the smaller ethnic clusters within that "umbrella". You said that Middle Easterners are not "white," because they have their own genetic group. True: But that genetic group clusters within the "Caucasoid" super-group. An Iranian clusters very close to Greeks, and surprisingly close to Englishmen and Danes. Because his dna falls within the Caucasoid cluster-group and less close to the Mongoloid cluster-group or the Negroid cluster-group, he's said to be "Caucasian". In fact, the people from the Caucasian mountains (who gave their name to the Caucasian race) are geographically very close to the physical country of Iran. If you saw a man from the Caucus region and a man from Iran, it would be hard to tell them apart. So, as I said, I think you're confusing "ethnic group" with the concept of "race".
|
|
|
Post by yigal on Sept 16, 2005 18:20:23 GMT -5
well a "white" in arab clothes can sometimes look rediculous other times a "white" in arab clothes,no longer looks so "white" especially if they are on the mediterenean/dinaric side of things antonio banderas in the begining of thirteenth warrior being an example surley he looked no less arab than co star shariff
|
|
|
Post by flight on Sept 17, 2005 7:20:14 GMT -5
White has nothing to do with features.
If you talk about features, you talk about Caucasian/Mongoloid/Negroid.
White is only a skincolor. Nothing more, nothing less.
There are many Arabs with white skin, those Arabs are white.
There are also many Arabs with lightbrown skin, those Arabs are not white.
Its as simple as that.
another example : Japanese people have white skin, so they are white. But Japanese people are not Caucasian. Japanese people are white Mongoloids (or non-Caucasian whites).
|
|
|
Post by zemelmete on Sept 17, 2005 8:25:09 GMT -5
Yeah, just think of definition "white" colour - it can't be dark.
Anyway arguing about if arabs, berbers, iranians etc. are white has no meaning. I think term "white" appeared to humans itself is stupid.
|
|
|
Post by osservatore on Sept 30, 2005 8:01:26 GMT -5
I saw a picture of Mike Connors, are you kidding I wouldnt consider him white. I would guess he is Southern Italian or Sicilian with his thick black eyebrows and hair. And I used to think Andre Agassi was half white, half black then I found out he is Armenian a few years ago so I never thought he was white. I don't want to be offensive, but I found lines like these ones to be quite funny. I'd like some italian racist to read this stuff, just to show him how limitative racism is.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Oct 4, 2005 23:59:49 GMT -5
another example : Japanese people have white skin, so they are white. But Japanese people are not Caucasian. Japanese people are white Mongoloids (or non-Caucasian whites). That's not really true. Most people associate a lighter skin color plus caucasoid features to be white.
|
|
|
Post by buddy on Oct 5, 2005 0:34:09 GMT -5
Most Arabs are Caucasoid, sure some have sub-Saharan admixture but most are clearly Caucasoid. As has been stated several times, one need not look Scandinavian to be Caucasoid! This is a concept that's surprisingly hard to grasp sometimes, perhaps more frequently among some Americans who believe that northern Europeans are the only true "whites." This is absurd. If you compare the average Arab with both a sub-Saharan African and a European, the Arab resembles the European far more closely. Also keep in mind that the sun shines brightly in the Middle East, thus people very often appear much darker-skinned than they actually are. The best thing to do would be to have a look at an Arab who works indoors.
|
|
|
Post by Funky Kong on Oct 5, 2005 10:19:39 GMT -5
And some of them are completely Negroid, which further points out the vagueness of using "Arab" as a racial term. Some Sudanese Arabs:
|
|
|
Post by k5125 on Oct 5, 2005 11:38:03 GMT -5
And some of them are completely Negroid, which further points out the vagueness of using "Arab" as a racial term. Some Sudanese Arabs: Yeah, aren't black people from Djibouti, Chad and Somalia arabs too? These countries are officially part of the arab league I think. So is Mauritania.
|
|