Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Funnyhat (talk | contribs) at 23:19, 2 April 2005 (→Junk data in this wiki article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page is a perfect example of the leftist, politically-correct bias on this site. Attacking other peoples' sense of racial/cultural identity, even going so far as to deny that race's existance, is hardly NPOV. whitemale

Slavs "not considered White" what absolute rubbish!, what poor scholarship! It's the first time I've ever seen it mentioned.

I don't believe this article is necessary, especially with this title, and it's hardly NPOV. -- Zoe

The categorization of white people has certainly had political, social, and historical impact. Too bad this article doesn't cover it. Ortolan88

This topic appears to be similar to Blacks arguing the difference between Egyptians and TutusVera Cruz

No Blacks is even shorter and messier than this article. The categorization of black people has certainly had political, social, and historical impact. Too bad that article doesn't cover it. Ortolan88

Why is this article claiming white Americans are ethnically Europeans? I have difficulty seeing "white" as being a term in reference to "ethnic descent" rather than racial descent. People of European racial descent are still refered to as being "white" when they are not ethnically European, whereas nobody of African racial descent would be called "white" when ethnically European. The term "white" originated as a racist reference to other Europeans, and in the Americas as in leu of not being black. I still find the term vulgar. (Misplaced Pages is messing up and seems to have attributed someone else's edit to me earlier).

Clearly it is a highly arbitrary social label. Hispanics, Jews, Arabs, Turkics, Persians, Roma, and even some Slavic peoples may or may not be considered "white" based entirely on social perceptions.

Slavs

Everybody calls slavs white, the goshdarn caucus mountains are in slavia ;) Sam Spade 17:35, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, many nativist groups denounced Slavic and other Eastern Europeans for being less than "white" (on account of supposed Mongol, Tartar, and Turkic admixture). Plus the Nazis generally saw the Slavs as subhuman. The article is not saying that Slavs are not "white", its stating that not everyone has eagerly welcomed Slavic peoples into the white fold in the past.

To be honest, this revelation about Slavs comes as a surprise to me as well. I have never heard that blonde, blue-eyed Poles or Russians were not considered "white". I guess you learn something everyday.  :) The fact is that the Slavs are very diverse within their own group. For instance, the differences between the North and South Slavs are often more or less parallel to the differences between the Dutch and the Italians, as far as physical characteristics are concerned.

"often in racist discourse"

What does this mean: " often in racist discourse"? "Whites" is used routinely any time people talk about demography and social issues in the US, and probably in a lot of other countries, too. It's about as likely to be used in anti-racist discourse as in racist discourse. - Nat Krause 08:26, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed it once before, but a certain someone keeps adding it back in again. The person doing this has admitted on several occasions to be biased against Whites, so one might wonder why. Or one might not. - 66.185.84.80

The term used for any formal discussion of race is going to be Caucassian. Casual conversation, however, will use "whites." I've gone ahead and edited to get all of that in. And 66.185.84.80... I would point out that you are on thin ice with the admins already due to suspicions that you're Paul Vogel. I don't think that continuing to make untrue claims about me is going to help your case. Snowspinner 16:04, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Irrelevant ramblings

The term is a racist slur IMO. Sam 08:42, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

"White" is? Perhaps you prefer "Pallid-American"? - Nat Krause 08:54, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I prefer Keltic-Teutonic ;)The focus on skin tone, and poor definition of the term, its derogatory usage and dismisal of the importance of ethnic traditions are all things I reject. I am Irish/German, and have never checked "white" on anything, including the census. That being said, I am extremely abnormal in that respect, and most people (employers, university, etc...) ignore my wishes and check the "white" box on their paperwork. This is of course ideosyncratic original research and has minimal bearing on the article. I don't know anybody else who is offended by the term ;) Sam 09:26, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

An interesting phenomena in the USA which I know from being a pollster is the habit of "redneck" type americans to report as "native american" for surveys. This amuses me to no end, esp. as when questioned they invariably respond w something like "I was born here" or "thats right, I'm an american". This is again original research, and not relevant ;) Sam 10:01, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

mulatto

' and a significant minority are mulatto (mixed Spanish and sub-Saharan African ancestry) '

this sentance is refering to hispanics, and is innacurate by both my personal knowledge, and the wiki definition of what mulatto means. Sam 20:36, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually, this is true, although often denied. In my opinion, the term "mulatto" in the English language applied to currently living people could be offensive.

Differing standards, differing countries

In the USA, white Hispanics are often not considered white, whereas elsewhere in the world this is not the case. Likewise, in the United Kingdom, light skinned South Asians are not considered white, whereas in the USA they are.

I don't agree that this is based entirely on country. Alot of people don't think of spanish and italians as white, regardless of where they live (see wog). I recently spoke to a N African who insisted he was white, even tho he clearly was not by american standards. So while there are some differences by nation, I think it is also largely subjective. Apparently in the USA hispanics, arabs, jews, and indians (from India) are all white, officially. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 09:19, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think a part of it is that there's too much of a habit of disregarding that there's an ethnically Australian, which is neither British, nor European, nor Aboriginal, nor 2nd gen Asian migrant, nor many other things. Because, you see, to say that I'm ethnically Australian (and so a 2nd gen Asian migrant is not) is politically incorrect, because it means that second generation Asians are discriminated against. So we fall back on other bizarre circumlocutions like 'White Australian', and hope it works; even tho it's totally bizarre especially when you consider e.g. Wogs or recent ex-Communist immigrants whose culture differs from mine, or that Chinese immigrants who came into the country during the Gold Rush era share more aspects of my culture than Wogs. I'm sure there are similar stupidities everywhere round the globe. (Please note that my use of 'Wog' isn't intended discriminatorily, but rather is being used to refer neutrally to a particular subculture in the manner that is customary amongst members of my (sub)culture and theirs. If you've been offended by this, or anything else I've written, you've misunderstood me. Seek clarification if you did not decide misunderstand.) Felix the Cassowary 11:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are people from India white?

Before 1950, Indians from India were classified as racially Hindu, even though some were not Hindu. Between 1950 to 1970, Indians were classified as racially white until some Indian-American organization protested to the Office of Management and Budget to have Indians be removed from the white category, thus Indians today classify themselves as Asian, or Asian Indian. If anybody looks up the word Caucasian in the dictionary, its definition is people who originate from Europe, southwest Asia, North Africa and the Indian sub-continent. It has been 35 years since Indians were taken of the white classification, and they are defined as caucasian in the dictionary. If Indians are defined as caucasian in the dictionary, why do they view themselves as non-white?--Gramaic 09:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, many many europeans seriously think that India is populated by gypsys, which is a coloured wandering race.

No, I think most ethnologists believe that the "gypsys" originated in India, which is something entirely different. Jayjg 17:27, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Junk data in this wiki article

>Whites living in the United States and Canada will typically have one or several Native American ancestors.

This is simply not true. By 1890 there were next to none indians lefts in North America, except for a few thousands in totally closed reservations. Now consider the huge amount of european immigrants who reached USA between 1890-1927 and tell me where do you see redskin ancestors for them? It is matter of fact that yankees and the whites exterminated the red indian race in North America and so they don't have many descendants. In contrast, the Caribbean, Central and South America are full of people, who were born out of (more or less) peaceful coexistence of native people and Iberian conquerors.

You're making the flawed assumption that there has been little intermarriage between people of different European ethnic groups in North America. In fact, the large majority of white people in the U.S. and Canada are "mutts" of multiple ethnic stripes. I, for instance, have one ancestor that came over around 1900, another that came around 1850, and one that came in the 1600s. (And yes, I have a bit of Native American blood.) Not to rain on your anti-American parade, but I wouldn't exactly describe the situation in colonial Latin America as "peaceful coexistence." The Spanish, encountering far larger numbers of Native Americans than the British did to the north, enslaved them en masse. Oh, and the Caribbean? Not exactly full of Native Americans these days. Funnyhat 23:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth - I'd define Caucasian as any native race in europe which is east of the caucus mountains. Define whites as those originally from northern european countries. If you leave it at that and then people can make up their own mind which countries belong in that bracket.

Defining whites as the original people from Northern European countries by itself is not fair. What about the other whites such as the Italians, Greeks, Yugoslavians, Syrians and Lebanese? White people are not just in Northern Europe, whites also originate from Southern and Eastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa.--Gramaic 04:51, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Article was gone, but restored.

An anon user deleted everything from the article earlier, but another anon user restored it. Who the hell would delete an entire article and then replace it with very stupid and childish writings?--Gramaic 05:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Whites living in the United States and Canada will typically have one or several Native American ancestors."

Yes, many or most Whites in the US are native Americans.

But the overwhelming majority have no Indian ancestors.

Love the anti-White racism, guys! Remember: there is only one appropriate avenue for your PC hatred, and you've found it!