Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Who is white?

Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2015 6:28:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The term "white" is a quite shady term. From the beginning, in USA as I've understood it, this term did not include the Irish, Slavic and not even Swedes at their first immigration wave to US. Nowadays, all those people are counted as white by most.

This term seems to mainly be of importance to far right nationalists and people from far left. The difference I see it is this:

Far right: He is not white. He is not one of us. He doesn't belong here.
Far left: Oh poor man, oppressed in society through the courtesy of white supremacy.

At least among the far right, the term seems to have ceased being about skin colour, the definition today mainly seems to be a native European with a family history of Christian adherents. Roma people (who were christianized in all Christian European countries) are although often excluded from this (at least here in Europe), but that must be the case because they immigrated to Europe in the Middle Ages and have lived a life at the side of the society until recently.

Also, there are Southern Italians and Greek people, etc, with a very dark skin. Are these people white? If yes, then I can't see any use of saying "white" if it has basically never been about "white skin colour". And if no, where would the borderline for white be then?

These dark skinned southern Europeans basically have the same skin colour as Arabs or northern Indians (India Indians) generally have. So in terms of skin colour, excluding only one of them would be quite strange.

In USA, racial terms seem to be out of certainly much importance, among all kinds of political directions. How would they define white? Same as the far right definition given here, or something else? How would you define white?
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2015 6:50:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 6:28:32 PM, Jovian wrote:
The term "white" is a quite shady term. From the beginning, in USA as I've understood it, this term did not include the Irish, Slavic and not even Swedes at their first immigration wave to US. Nowadays, all those people are counted as white by most.

This term seems to mainly be of importance to far right nationalists and people from far left. The difference I see it is this:

Far right: He is not white. He is not one of us. He doesn't belong here.
Far left: Oh poor man, oppressed in society through the courtesy of white supremacy.

At least among the far right, the term seems to have ceased being about skin colour, the definition today mainly seems to be a native European with a family history of Christian adherents. Roma people (who were christianized in all Christian European countries) are although often excluded from this (at least here in Europe), but that must be the case because they immigrated to Europe in the Middle Ages and have lived a life at the side of the society until recently.

Also, there are Southern Italians and Greek people, etc, with a very dark skin. Are these people white? If yes, then I can't see any use of saying "white" if it has basically never been about "white skin colour". And if no, where would the borderline for white be then?

These dark skinned southern Europeans basically have the same skin colour as Arabs or northern Indians (India Indians) generally have. So in terms of skin colour, excluding only one of them would be quite strange.

In USA, racial terms seem to be out of certainly much importance, among all kinds of political directions. How would they define white? Same as the far right definition given here, or something else? How would you define white?

Agree its a shady term. I would personally say ethnic europeans and people of ethnic european descent classify as white people. Southern Europeans are still white skinned in my view there is a considerable difference between them and Arabs in terms of physical appearance.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2015 7:01:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 6:50:53 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 11/26/2015 6:28:32 PM, Jovian wrote:
The term "white" is a quite shady term. From the beginning, in USA as I've understood it, this term did not include the Irish, Slavic and not even Swedes at their first immigration wave to US. Nowadays, all those people are counted as white by most.

This term seems to mainly be of importance to far right nationalists and people from far left. The difference I see it is this:

Far right: He is not white. He is not one of us. He doesn't belong here.
Far left: Oh poor man, oppressed in society through the courtesy of white supremacy.

At least among the far right, the term seems to have ceased being about skin colour, the definition today mainly seems to be a native European with a family history of Christian adherents. Roma people (who were christianized in all Christian European countries) are although often excluded from this (at least here in Europe), but that must be the case because they immigrated to Europe in the Middle Ages and have lived a life at the side of the society until recently.

Also, there are Southern Italians and Greek people, etc, with a very dark skin. Are these people white? If yes, then I can't see any use of saying "white" if it has basically never been about "white skin colour". And if no, where would the borderline for white be then?

These dark skinned southern Europeans basically have the same skin colour as Arabs or northern Indians (India Indians) generally have. So in terms of skin colour, excluding only one of them would be quite strange.

In USA, racial terms seem to be out of certainly much importance, among all kinds of political directions. How would they define white? Same as the far right definition given here, or something else? How would you define white?

Agree its a shady term. I would personally say ethnic europeans and people of ethnic european descent classify as white people. Southern Europeans are still white skinned in my view there is a considerable difference between them and Arabs in terms of physical appearance.

So that would render white into a matter of facial features. I don't know how much difference there would be in facial features between Sicilians and Arabs. Higher prevalence of a hook nose among the latter ones perhaps. It's not like a hook noses don't exist among Europeans.

There is probably also a high difference of facial features between Scandinavians and Southern Europeans, even though these two seem to be traditionally white.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2015 7:31:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 7:01:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 11/26/2015 6:50:53 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 11/26/2015 6:28:32 PM, Jovian wrote:
The term "white" is a quite shady term. From the beginning, in USA as I've understood it, this term did not include the Irish, Slavic and not even Swedes at their first immigration wave to US. Nowadays, all those people are counted as white by most.

This term seems to mainly be of importance to far right nationalists and people from far left. The difference I see it is this:

Far right: He is not white. He is not one of us. He doesn't belong here.
Far left: Oh poor man, oppressed in society through the courtesy of white supremacy.

At least among the far right, the term seems to have ceased being about skin colour, the definition today mainly seems to be a native European with a family history of Christian adherents. Roma people (who were christianized in all Christian European countries) are although often excluded from this (at least here in Europe), but that must be the case because they immigrated to Europe in the Middle Ages and have lived a life at the side of the society until recently.

Also, there are Southern Italians and Greek people, etc, with a very dark skin. Are these people white? If yes, then I can't see any use of saying "white" if it has basically never been about "white skin colour". And if no, where would the borderline for white be then?

These dark skinned southern Europeans basically have the same skin colour as Arabs or northern Indians (India Indians) generally have. So in terms of skin colour, excluding only one of them would be quite strange.

In USA, racial terms seem to be out of certainly much importance, among all kinds of political directions. How would they define white? Same as the far right definition given here, or something else? How would you define white?

Agree its a shady term. I would personally say ethnic europeans and people of ethnic european descent classify as white people. Southern Europeans are still white skinned in my view there is a considerable difference between them and Arabs in terms of physical appearance.

So that would render white into a matter of facial features. I don't know how much difference there would be in facial features between Sicilians and Arabs. Higher prevalence of a hook nose among the latter ones perhaps. It's not like a hook noses don't exist among Europeans.

There is probably also a high difference of facial features between Scandinavians and Southern Europeans, even though these two seem to be traditionally white.

Personally I could find it quite easy to distinguish a Sicilian from a Tunisian. I agree they have a lot of similarities though. Yes its a shady area and obviously with any race the area on the border with the next race has a population that is a mixture of the two. However to me the Spanish and Italians appear closer to the whiter people of northern Europe while the north Africans appear more Arab in appearance.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2015 8:45:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 6:28:32 PM, Jovian wrote:
Also, there are Southern Italians and Greek people, etc, with a very dark skin. Are these people white? If yes, then I can't see any use of saying "white" if it has basically never been about "white skin colour". And if no, where would the borderline for white be then?
If you think Greeks and Northern Indians have the same skin colour, you need to check your eyesight. :)

Anyway, white person = genetic ancestry traced to Europe.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2015 9:56:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 8:45:29 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 11/26/2015 6:28:32 PM, Jovian wrote:
Also, there are Southern Italians and Greek people, etc, with a very dark skin. Are these people white? If yes, then I can't see any use of saying "white" if it has basically never been about "white skin colour". And if no, where would the borderline for white be then?
If you think Greeks and Northern Indians have the same skin colour, you need to check your eyesight. :)

Anyway, white person = genetic ancestry traced to Europe.

Maybe Indians was a little exaggeration, however most Turks and Arabs from Northern Africa and the Levant would pass as southern Europeans. Some of these would easily pass as northern Europeans too, like Bashar al-Assad.

Also, I see now that US censues regard anyone from Northern Africa and Middle East as white https://www.whitehouse.gov... and UK regard Roma people as white in their censuses http://www.ons.gov.uk... . That's interesting.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2015 10:56:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 6:28:32 PM, Jovian wrote:
The term "white" is a quite shady term. From the beginning, in USA as I've understood it, this term did not include the Irish, Slavic and not even Swedes at their first immigration wave to US. Nowadays, all those people are counted as white by most.

This term seems to mainly be of importance to far right nationalists and people from far left. The difference I see it is this:

Far right: He is not white. He is not one of us. He doesn't belong here.
Far left: Oh poor man, oppressed in society through the courtesy of white supremacy.

At least among the far right, the term seems to have ceased being about skin colour, the definition today mainly seems to be a native European with a family history of Christian adherents. Roma people (who were christianized in all Christian European countries) are although often excluded from this (at least here in Europe), but that must be the case because they immigrated to Europe in the Middle Ages and have lived a life at the side of the society until recently.

Also, there are Southern Italians and Greek people, etc, with a very dark skin. Are these people white? If yes, then I can't see any use of saying "white" if it has basically never been about "white skin colour". And if no, where would the borderline for white be then?

These dark skinned southern Europeans basically have the same skin colour as Arabs or northern Indians (India Indians) generally have. So in terms of skin colour, excluding only one of them would be quite strange.

In USA, racial terms seem to be out of certainly much importance, among all kinds of political directions. How would they define white? Same as the far right definition given here, or something else? How would you define white?

You've made a compelling point with intriguing insight as to why particular political groups have interest in this label. From what I've read, the answer lies in genetics, wherein a genetic bloodline could be considered "white".

However, as to why people misidentify genetic bloodlines, the answer is rather obvious: people judge on factors other than genetic bloodline, in other words, merely the visual representation. So, it is possible that someone appears white, yet does not have the necessary genetic bloodline to be considered white. This is how the discordance you write of eventuates.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2015 10:57:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 6:28:32 PM, Jovian wrote:
The term "white" is a quite shady term. From the beginning, in USA as I've understood it, this term did not include the Irish, Slavic and not even Swedes at their first immigration wave to US. Nowadays, all those people are counted as white by most.

This term seems to mainly be of importance to far right nationalists and people from far left. The difference I see it is this:

Far right: He is not white. He is not one of us. He doesn't belong here.
Far left: Oh poor man, oppressed in society through the courtesy of white supremacy.

At least among the far right, the term seems to have ceased being about skin colour, the definition today mainly seems to be a native European with a family history of Christian adherents. Roma people (who were christianized in all Christian European countries) are although often excluded from this (at least here in Europe), but that must be the case because they immigrated to Europe in the Middle Ages and have lived a life at the side of the society until recently.

Also, there are Southern Italians and Greek people, etc, with a very dark skin. Are these people white? If yes, then I can't see any use of saying "white" if it has basically never been about "white skin colour". And if no, where would the borderline for white be then?

These dark skinned southern Europeans basically have the same skin colour as Arabs or northern Indians (India Indians) generally have. So in terms of skin colour, excluding only one of them would be quite strange.

In USA, racial terms seem to be out of certainly much importance, among all kinds of political directions. How would they define white? Same as the far right definition given here, or something else? How would you define white?

Certainly not the pseudo-white Americans.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2015 11:09:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 10:57:55 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 11/26/2015 6:28:32 PM, Jovian wrote:
The term "white" is a quite shady term. From the beginning, in USA as I've understood it, this term did not include the Irish, Slavic and not even Swedes at their first immigration wave to US. Nowadays, all those people are counted as white by most.

This term seems to mainly be of importance to far right nationalists and people from far left. The difference I see it is this:

Far right: He is not white. He is not one of us. He doesn't belong here.
Far left: Oh poor man, oppressed in society through the courtesy of white supremacy.

At least among the far right, the term seems to have ceased being about skin colour, the definition today mainly seems to be a native European with a family history of Christian adherents. Roma people (who were christianized in all Christian European countries) are although often excluded from this (at least here in Europe), but that must be the case because they immigrated to Europe in the Middle Ages and have lived a life at the side of the society until recently.

Also, there are Southern Italians and Greek people, etc, with a very dark skin. Are these people white? If yes, then I can't see any use of saying "white" if it has basically never been about "white skin colour". And if no, where would the borderline for white be then?

These dark skinned southern Europeans basically have the same skin colour as Arabs or northern Indians (India Indians) generally have. So in terms of skin colour, excluding only one of them would be quite strange.

In USA, racial terms seem to be out of certainly much importance, among all kinds of political directions. How would they define white? Same as the far right definition given here, or something else? How would you define white?

Certainly not the pseudo-white Americans.

Why are they not white, who is white then and why would the term be of importance?
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2015 11:10:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 11:09:39 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 11/26/2015 10:57:55 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 11/26/2015 6:28:32 PM, Jovian wrote:
The term "white" is a quite shady term. From the beginning, in USA as I've understood it, this term did not include the Irish, Slavic and not even Swedes at their first immigration wave to US. Nowadays, all those people are counted as white by most.

This term seems to mainly be of importance to far right nationalists and people from far left. The difference I see it is this:

Far right: He is not white. He is not one of us. He doesn't belong here.
Far left: Oh poor man, oppressed in society through the courtesy of white supremacy.

At least among the far right, the term seems to have ceased being about skin colour, the definition today mainly seems to be a native European with a family history of Christian adherents. Roma people (who were christianized in all Christian European countries) are although often excluded from this (at least here in Europe), but that must be the case because they immigrated to Europe in the Middle Ages and have lived a life at the side of the society until recently.

Also, there are Southern Italians and Greek people, etc, with a very dark skin. Are these people white? If yes, then I can't see any use of saying "white" if it has basically never been about "white skin colour". And if no, where would the borderline for white be then?

These dark skinned southern Europeans basically have the same skin colour as Arabs or northern Indians (India Indians) generally have. So in terms of skin colour, excluding only one of them would be quite strange.

In USA, racial terms seem to be out of certainly much importance, among all kinds of political directions. How would they define white? Same as the far right definition given here, or something else? How would you define white?

Certainly not the pseudo-white Americans.

Why are they not white, who is white then and why would the term be of importance?

Ask Mirza that.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2015 11:14:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 11:10:07 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 11/26/2015 11:09:39 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 11/26/2015 10:57:55 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 11/26/2015 6:28:32 PM, Jovian wrote:
The term "white" is a quite shady term. From the beginning, in USA as I've understood it, this term did not include the Irish, Slavic and not even Swedes at their first immigration wave to US. Nowadays, all those people are counted as white by most.

This term seems to mainly be of importance to far right nationalists and people from far left. The difference I see it is this:

Far right: He is not white. He is not one of us. He doesn't belong here.
Far left: Oh poor man, oppressed in society through the courtesy of white supremacy.

At least among the far right, the term seems to have ceased being about skin colour, the definition today mainly seems to be a native European with a family history of Christian adherents. Roma people (who were christianized in all Christian European countries) are although often excluded from this (at least here in Europe), but that must be the case because they immigrated to Europe in the Middle Ages and have lived a life at the side of the society until recently.

Also, there are Southern Italians and Greek people, etc, with a very dark skin. Are these people white? If yes, then I can't see any use of saying "white" if it has basically never been about "white skin colour". And if no, where would the borderline for white be then?

These dark skinned southern Europeans basically have the same skin colour as Arabs or northern Indians (India Indians) generally have. So in terms of skin colour, excluding only one of them would be quite strange.

In USA, racial terms seem to be out of certainly much importance, among all kinds of political directions. How would they define white? Same as the far right definition given here, or something else? How would you define white?

Certainly not the pseudo-white Americans.

Why are they not white, who is white then and why would the term be of importance?

Ask Mirza that.

Mirza haven't yet replied why he changed his opinion "Americans are not white" to "White = Genetic ancestry traced to Europe" in a period of 2 days.

Why you would use his arguments without reflecting over them could possibly only explained through that you regard him holy.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2015 11:16:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 11:14:53 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 11/26/2015 11:10:07 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 11/26/2015 11:09:39 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 11/26/2015 10:57:55 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 11/26/2015 6:28:32 PM, Jovian wrote:
The term "white" is a quite shady term. From the beginning, in USA as I've understood it, this term did not include the Irish, Slavic and not even Swedes at their first immigration wave to US. Nowadays, all those people are counted as white by most.

This term seems to mainly be of importance to far right nationalists and people from far left. The difference I see it is this:

Far right: He is not white. He is not one of us. He doesn't belong here.
Far left: Oh poor man, oppressed in society through the courtesy of white supremacy.

At least among the far right, the term seems to have ceased being about skin colour, the definition today mainly seems to be a native European with a family history of Christian adherents. Roma people (who were christianized in all Christian European countries) are although often excluded from this (at least here in Europe), but that must be the case because they immigrated to Europe in the Middle Ages and have lived a life at the side of the society until recently.

Also, there are Southern Italians and Greek people, etc, with a very dark skin. Are these people white? If yes, then I can't see any use of saying "white" if it has basically never been about "white skin colour". And if no, where would the borderline for white be then?

These dark skinned southern Europeans basically have the same skin colour as Arabs or northern Indians (India Indians) generally have. So in terms of skin colour, excluding only one of them would be quite strange.

In USA, racial terms seem to be out of certainly much importance, among all kinds of political directions. How would they define white? Same as the far right definition given here, or something else? How would you define white?

Certainly not the pseudo-white Americans.

Why are they not white, who is white then and why would the term be of importance?

Ask Mirza that.

Mirza haven't yet replied why he changed his opinion "Americans are not white" to "White = Genetic ancestry traced to Europe" in a period of 2 days.

Why you would use his arguments without reflecting over them could possibly only explained through that you regard him holy.

It's a joke.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2015 11:17:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 11:16:32 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 11/26/2015 11:14:53 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 11/26/2015 11:10:07 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 11/26/2015 11:09:39 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 11/26/2015 10:57:55 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 11/26/2015 6:28:32 PM, Jovian wrote:
The term "white" is a quite shady term. From the beginning, in USA as I've understood it, this term did not include the Irish, Slavic and not even Swedes at their first immigration wave to US. Nowadays, all those people are counted as white by most.

This term seems to mainly be of importance to far right nationalists and people from far left. The difference I see it is this:

Far right: He is not white. He is not one of us. He doesn't belong here.
Far left: Oh poor man, oppressed in society through the courtesy of white supremacy.

At least among the far right, the term seems to have ceased being about skin colour, the definition today mainly seems to be a native European with a family history of Christian adherents. Roma people (who were christianized in all Christian European countries) are although often excluded from this (at least here in Europe), but that must be the case because they immigrated to Europe in the Middle Ages and have lived a life at the side of the society until recently.

Also, there are Southern Italians and Greek people, etc, with a very dark skin. Are these people white? If yes, then I can't see any use of saying "white" if it has basically never been about "white skin colour". And if no, where would the borderline for white be then?

These dark skinned southern Europeans basically have the same skin colour as Arabs or northern Indians (India Indians) generally have. So in terms of skin colour, excluding only one of them would be quite strange.

In USA, racial terms seem to be out of certainly much importance, among all kinds of political directions. How would they define white? Same as the far right definition given here, or something else? How would you define white?

Certainly not the pseudo-white Americans.

Why are they not white, who is white then and why would the term be of importance?

Ask Mirza that.

Mirza haven't yet replied why he changed his opinion "Americans are not white" to "White = Genetic ancestry traced to Europe" in a period of 2 days.

Why you would use his arguments without reflecting over them could possibly only explained through that you regard him holy.

It's a joke.

Ah I suspected that haha.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 1:26:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 6:28:32 PM, Jovian wrote:
The term "white" is a quite shady term. From the beginning, in USA as I've understood it, this term did not include the Irish, Slavic and not even Swedes at their first immigration wave to US. Nowadays, all those people are counted as white by most.

This term seems to mainly be of importance to far right nationalists and people from far left. The difference I see it is this:

Far right: He is not white. He is not one of us. He doesn't belong here.
Far left: Oh poor man, oppressed in society through the courtesy of white supremacy.

At least among the far right, the term seems to have ceased being about skin colour, the definition today mainly seems to be a native European with a family history of Christian adherents. Roma people (who were christianized in all Christian European countries) are although often excluded from this (at least here in Europe), but that must be the case because they immigrated to Europe in the Middle Ages and have lived a life at the side of the society until recently.

Also, there are Southern Italians and Greek people, etc, with a very dark skin. Are these people white? If yes, then I can't see any use of saying "white" if it has basically never been about "white skin colour". And if no, where would the borderline for white be then?

These dark skinned southern Europeans basically have the same skin colour as Arabs or northern Indians (India Indians) generally have. So in terms of skin colour, excluding only one of them would be quite strange.

In USA, racial terms seem to be out of certainly much importance, among all kinds of political directions. How would they define white? Same as the far right definition given here, or something else? How would you define white?

A White person can be defined as a person who is descended from the indigenous peoples of Europe. For purposes of simplification it could be said that you are white if your ancestors were Celtic, proto-Europeans (such as those of Italy or Spain), Germanic, Slavic, and/or Greek.
Roma are not white because they've only been present in Europe for about 1000 years. An albino Australian aborigine is not white either.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 1:34:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 6:28:32 PM, Jovian wrote:
The term "white" is a quite shady term. From the beginning, in USA as I've understood it, this term did not include the Irish, Slavic and not even Swedes at their first immigration wave to US. Nowadays, all those people are counted as white by most.

This term seems to mainly be of importance to far right nationalists and people from far left. The difference I see it is this:

Far right: He is not white. He is not one of us. He doesn't belong here.
Far left: Oh poor man, oppressed in society through the courtesy of white supremacy.

At least among the far right, the term seems to have ceased being about skin colour, the definition today mainly seems to be a native European with a family history of Christian adherents. Roma people (who were christianized in all Christian European countries) are although often excluded from this (at least here in Europe), but that must be the case because they immigrated to Europe in the Middle Ages and have lived a life at the side of the society until recently.

Also, there are Southern Italians and Greek people, etc, with a very dark skin. Are these people white? If yes, then I can't see any use of saying "white" if it has basically never been about "white skin colour". And if no, where would the borderline for white be then?

These dark skinned southern Europeans basically have the same skin colour as Arabs or northern Indians (India Indians) generally have. So in terms of skin colour, excluding only one of them would be quite strange.

In USA, racial terms seem to be out of certainly much importance, among all kinds of political directions. How would they define white? Same as the far right definition given here, or something else? How would you define white?

Oh my God Jovian! You cant just ask people's why they're white!
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 3:00:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 1:34:59 AM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 11/26/2015 6:28:32 PM, Jovian wrote:
The term "white" is a quite shady term. From the beginning, in USA as I've understood it, this term did not include the Irish, Slavic and not even Swedes at their first immigration wave to US. Nowadays, all those people are counted as white by most.

This term seems to mainly be of importance to far right nationalists and people from far left. The difference I see it is this:

Far right: He is not white. He is not one of us. He doesn't belong here.
Far left: Oh poor man, oppressed in society through the courtesy of white supremacy.

At least among the far right, the term seems to have ceased being about skin colour, the definition today mainly seems to be a native European with a family history of Christian adherents. Roma people (who were christianized in all Christian European countries) are although often excluded from this (at least here in Europe), but that must be the case because they immigrated to Europe in the Middle Ages and have lived a life at the side of the society until recently.

Also, there are Southern Italians and Greek people, etc, with a very dark skin. Are these people white? If yes, then I can't see any use of saying "white" if it has basically never been about "white skin colour". And if no, where would the borderline for white be then?

These dark skinned southern Europeans basically have the same skin colour as Arabs or northern Indians (India Indians) generally have. So in terms of skin colour, excluding only one of them would be quite strange.

In USA, racial terms seem to be out of certainly much importance, among all kinds of political directions. How would they define white? Same as the far right definition given here, or something else? How would you define white?

Oh my God Jovian! You cant just ask people's why they're white!

True that. Shame on me for wanting answers to why the word of a colour is frequently misused :P
lotsoffun
Posts: 1,601
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 3:54:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 6:28:32 PM, Jovian wrote:
The term "white" is a quite shady term. From the beginning, in USA as I've understood it, this term did not include the Irish, Slavic and not even Swedes at their first immigration wave to US. Nowadays, all those people are counted as white by most.

This term seems to mainly be of importance to far right nationalists and people from far left. The difference I see it is this:

Far right: He is not white. He is not one of us. He doesn't belong here.
Far left: Oh poor man, oppressed in society through the courtesy of white supremacy.

At least among the far right, the term seems to have ceased being about skin colour, the definition today mainly seems to be a native European with a family history of Christian adherents. Roma people (who were christianized in all Christian European countries) are although often excluded from this (at least here in Europe), but that must be the case because they immigrated to Europe in the Middle Ages and have lived a life at the side of the society until recently.

Also, there are Southern Italians and Greek people, etc, with a very dark skin. Are these people white? If yes, then I can't see any use of saying "white" if it has basically never been about "white skin colour". And if no, where would the borderline for white be then?

These dark skinned southern Europeans basically have the same skin colour as Arabs or northern Indians (India Indians) generally have. So in terms of skin colour, excluding only one of them would be quite strange.

In USA, racial terms seem to be out of certainly much importance, among all kinds of political directions. How would they define white? Same as the far right definition given here, or something else? How would you define white?

By your terms most blacks in the U.S. aren't black either because most have some white blood and anyone with 1/8 black is considered black. How about we just give up the racial profiling and turn our attention to religion and it's great divide and looming war between Islam and the so called free world.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 12:22:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 9:56:29 PM, Jovian wrote:
Maybe Indians was a little exaggeration, however most Turks and Arabs from Northern Africa and the Levant would pass as southern Europeans. Some of these would easily pass as northern Europeans too, like Bashar al-Assad.
No, they wouldn't. And Assad doesn't even look European. You know, it's more than just the skin tone.

Also, I see now that US censues regard anyone from Northern Africa and Middle East as white https://www.whitehouse.gov... and UK regard Roma people as white in their censuses http://www.ons.gov.uk... . That's interesting.
That's not interesting, and it's irrelevant. I couldn't care what an American census said. So, the word "Caucasian" is often - erroneously - used as a synonym for white, even though they are not the same. It's PC-stuff, basically. It's simple: all whites are Caucasians, but not all Caucasians are white. They can be Arabs or other Caucasoid peoples.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 12:31:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Also, define "Southern European". I find this to be the most correct regional map of Europe: http://2012books.lardbucket.org...

To say that Turks have the same skin-tone as Southern Europeans, i.e., the Spanish, Greeks, et al, is factually wrong, and you're wrong because your observation is neither correct nor the proper measurement. To measure it, scientists often look at children (they are mostly unexposed to the sun), and specifically measure their skin on the armpit.

Additionally, Southern Europe is sunny, so any native can easily get a tan, even if he is light-skinned by default. Moreover, as for the Turks and people in the Levant, this is simple: a good portion of them have European ancestry. The Jews in Israel are a good example. As for the Turks, their country was a melting pot, and many Europeans have migrated there over time (especially over a century ago when white Muslims went there lest they should be oppressed). See this "Turkish" man who plays for the Turkish national football team: https://www.google.dk... His ancestry is European, and probably ethnic Albanian. But, he could mistakenly be called a Turk. So, more often than not, the Middle Easterners who appear white are either white or have white ancestry to a significant degree. Or, if they look white to you, maybe you need to learn how to distinguish between white and non-white features. :)
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 12:39:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 12:31:47 AM, Mirza wrote:
Also, define "Southern European". I find this to be the most correct regional map of Europe: http://2012books.lardbucket.org...
I disagree with Austria being Western Europe though
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 12:42:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 12:39:03 AM, BlackFlags wrote:
At 11/29/2015 12:31:47 AM, Mirza wrote:
Also, define "Southern European". I find this to be the most correct regional map of Europe: http://2012books.lardbucket.org...
I disagree with Austria being Western Europe though
Europe is too odd to divide it simply into regions of east and west, but we often take into account the cultures, and Austria is more Western than Eastern.

In that map, however, Russia ought to count as Eastern European, and Turkey should be left out because it's neither in Europe nor are its people Europeans.
j50wells
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 4:11:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 6:28:32 PM, Jovian wrote:
The term "white" is a quite shady term. From the beginning, in USA as I've understood it, this term did not include the Irish, Slavic and not even Swedes at their first immigration wave to US. Nowadays, all those people are counted as white by most.

This term seems to mainly be of importance to far right nationalists and people from far left. The difference I see it is this:

Far right: He is not white. He is not one of us. He doesn't belong here.
Far left: Oh poor man, oppressed in society through the courtesy of white supremacy.

At least among the far right, the term seems to have ceased being about skin colour, the definition today mainly seems to be a native European with a family history of Christian adherents. Roma people (who were christianized in all Christian European countries) are although often excluded from this (at least here in Europe), but that must be the case because they immigrated to Europe in the Middle Ages and have lived a life at the side of the society until recently.

Also, there are Southern Italians and Greek people, etc, with a very dark skin. Are these people white? If yes, then I can't see any use of saying "white" if it has basically never been about "white skin colour". And if no, where would the borderline for white be then?

These dark skinned southern Europeans basically have the same skin colour as Arabs or northern Indians (India Indians) generally have. So in terms of skin colour, excluding only one of them would be quite strange.

In USA, racial terms seem to be out of certainly much importance, among all kinds of political directions. How would they define white? Same as the far right definition given here, or something else? How would you define white?

White? Sounds like a code word for not being a socialist. Yeah, I'm white. Love white. When you say white you are saying, "Those who believe in John Locke, Cicero, and Jefferson." Anyone who is against white is against their own freedom. But it's not really white, is it. It's humanity. It's truth. It's the betterment of all. It common law. It's freedom of religion. It's freedom of speech. Freedom to assemble. The right to not have our stuff illegally seized of searched. This is what white is. But it shouldn't just be white. It should be spread to all colors, all cultures, all creeds, and all people's. It should be a black, Hispanic, and Asian thing.
And why did white culture come to and understanding of things? We came to it because we are in the northern latitudes. We had long winters of holing up in caves and houses to think. This thinking led to our understanding of things.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 9:46:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 12:22:46 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 11/26/2015 9:56:29 PM, Jovian wrote:
Maybe Indians was a little exaggeration, however most Turks and Arabs from Northern Africa and the Levant would pass as southern Europeans. Some of these would easily pass as northern Europeans too, like Bashar al-Assad.
No, they wouldn't. And Assad doesn't even look European. You know, it's more than just the skin tone.

You're just saying that because you already knew he was "non-White" in your ethnocentric world. If Assad would speak a fluent German sentence, I would never had thought "Oh an Arab". Well, I've got no study that says that people easily could distinguish Arabs and Sicilians, these are just my opinions. Many people from Southern Europe would also pass as Arabs, even some of you Balkanians.

Also, I see now that US censues regard anyone from Northern Africa and Middle East as white https://www.whitehouse.gov... and UK regard Roma people as white in their censuses http://www.ons.gov.uk... . That's interesting.
That's not interesting, and it's irrelevant. I couldn't care what an American census said. So, the word "Caucasian" is often - erroneously - used as a synonym for white, even though they are not the same. It's PC-stuff, basically. It's simple: all whites are Caucasians, but not all Caucasians are white. They can be Arabs or other Caucasoid peoples.

They don't have monopoly on who is white, neither do you.

At 11/29/2015 12:31:47 AM, Mirza wrote:
Also, define "Southern European". I find this to be the most correct regional map of Europe: http://2012books.lardbucket.org...

To say that Turks have the same skin-tone as Southern Europeans, i.e., the Spanish, Greeks, et al, is factually wrong, and you're wrong because your observation is neither correct nor the proper measurement. To measure it, scientists often look at children (they are mostly unexposed to the sun), and specifically measure their skin on the armpit.

Additionally, Southern Europe is sunny, so any native can easily get a tan, even if he is light-skinned by default. Moreover, as for the Turks and people in the Levant, this is simple: a good portion of them have European ancestry. The Jews in Israel are a good example. As for the Turks, their country was a melting pot, and many Europeans have migrated there over time (especially over a century ago when white Muslims went there lest they should be oppressed). See this "Turkish" man who plays for the Turkish national football team: https://www.google.dk... His ancestry is European, and probably ethnic Albanian. But, he could mistakenly be called a Turk. So, more often than not, the Middle Easterners who appear white are either white or have white ancestry to a significant degree. Or, if they look white to you, maybe you need to learn how to distinguish between white and non-white features. :)

These bald sentences do together not make sense. All Turks don't look the same. I know about how the sultans brought women to their harems from everywhere.

This is just not logical at all. A pale and blonde Icelandic and the most darkest Sicilian man, both are white. The most darkest Sicilian man and Bashar al-Assad, only the dark Sicilian is white :P
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 8:17:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 9:46:37 PM, Jovian wrote:
You're just saying that because you already knew he was "non-White" in your ethnocentric world. If Assad would speak a fluent German sentence, I would never ishad thought "Oh an Arab". Well, I've got no study that says that people easily could distinguish Arabs and Sicilians, these are just my opinions. Many people from Southern Europe would also pass as Arabs, even some of you Balkanians.
Don't tell me why I say what I say, amateur. I'm here to educate you, not vice versa. So, Assad "could" pass as a Southern European - but most Arabs could not. They have darker skin by default (you need to compare those who haven't got a tan from sun exposure), and different features in general.

Syrian refugees: http://i.dailymail.co.uk...

Yea... :)

They don't have monopoly on who is white, neither do you.
Europeans are white. That's pretty well-established. :)

These bald sentences do together not make sense. All Turks don't look the same. I know about how the sultans brought women to their harems from everywhere.
On average, they are dark. Know the meaning of "average"? I guess not. :)

This is just not logical at all. A pale and blonde Icelandic and the most darkest Sicilian man, both are white. The most darkest Sicilian man and Bashar al-Assad, only the dark Sicilian is white :P
Sicilians are really an exception, so don't even begin comparing. I don't even know if they are even white; they definitely have more admixture than the vast majority of Europeans.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 10:55:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 8:17:13 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 11/29/2015 9:46:37 PM, Jovian wrote:
You're just saying that because you already knew he was "non-White" in your ethnocentric world. If Assad would speak a fluent German sentence, I would never ishad thought "Oh an Arab". Well, I've got no study that says that people easily could distinguish Arabs and Sicilians, these are just my opinions. Many people from Southern Europe would also pass as Arabs, even some of you Balkanians.
Don't tell me why I say what I say, amateur. I'm here to educate you, not vice versa. So, Assad "could" pass as a Southern European - but most Arabs could not. They have darker skin by default (you need to compare those who haven't got a tan from sun exposure), and different features in general.

So when you have received a counterargument, then you retort with personal attacks. Why are you here on Debate.org? Debate is defined as a biliteral discussion. If you don't want counterarguments, either be gone from this site and write your opinions in a notebook or put as a disclaimer in your signature "Don't counterargument because then you've hurted my feelings".

I'm quite educated in this actually, one of my goals with this thread was to receive arguments from different political camps.

Syrian refugees: http://i.dailymail.co.uk...

Yea... :)

They don't have monopoly on who is white, neither do you.
Europeans are white. That's pretty well-established. :)

It's quite well-established in the white nationalist world that you wouldn't be white too.

These bald sentences do together not make sense. All Turks don't look the same. I know about how the sultans brought women to their harems from everywhere.
On average, they are dark. Know the meaning of "average"? I guess not. :)

Turkish Kurds yes, but Turks, I guess on average the same tone as Greek.

This is just not logical at all. A pale and blonde Icelandic and the most darkest Sicilian man, both are white. The most darkest Sicilian man and Bashar al-Assad, only the dark Sicilian is white :P
Sicilians are really an exception, so don't even begin comparing. I don't even know if they are even white; they definitely have more admixture than the vast majority of Europeans.

Time to move the goalposts now too. I've actually heard southern Italians and Spaniards generally share more haplogroups in common with the Arabs, having lived together with them and always lived quite near them.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2015 1:46:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 8:29:12 AM, Mirza wrote:
So, Jovian, what is your ethnicity? :)

Oh I forgot this. Dutchman.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2015 2:03:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 10:55:58 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 11/30/2015 8:17:13 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 11/29/2015 9:46:37 PM, Jovian wrote:
You're just saying that because you already knew he was "non-White" in your ethnocentric world. If Assad would speak a fluent German sentence, I would never ishad thought "Oh an Arab". Well, I've got no study that says that people easily could distinguish Arabs and Sicilians, these are just my opinions. Many people from Southern Europe would also pass as Arabs, even some of you Balkanians.
Don't tell me why I say what I say, amateur. I'm here to educate you, not vice versa.

Oh now I see what stirred you up. Yeah sure what I wrote was flawed and unprofessional, but so was your response :P