July 6, 2013

Indian says whites should not call anybody "Caucasian"

In the long run, the government's definitions of who gets money and prizes for being a favored race or ethnicity and who belongs to the legally disfavored groups who have to ante up the money and prizes is hugely important. 

For example, the government's effort to compensate the descendants of American slaves by defining everybody who wants to assert any sub-Saharan ancestry as a protected race is the fundamental reason the non-force of nature Barack Obama is in the White House. Similarly, the Nixon Administration's creation of a Hispanic ethnicity out of people of Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban descent is the reason the media has anointed Marco Rubio as Presidential Timber: the growth of the Mexican-American population makes the Cuban Rubio a natural!

Not surprisingly, there have been rumblings among the currently legally unprivileged as they strategize how to bail out of the white/Caucasian category. Arab groups, for example, have been asking to be excused from being white and instead get their own category so they can sue when disparate impact is not in their favor. The end game, which we are still a long way from, of course, is to leave Mitt Romney as the last remaining white person in America.

(When it comes to being legally privileged, I'm a Big Tent guy. I want as many people stuffed into the unprivileged tent with me to share the burden. But that's a pretty rare insight these days.)

Golfer Vijay Singh
"Caucasian" as a synonym for white is particularly troublesome to people who don't want to get left holding the fuzzy end of the racial privilege lollipop. Why? Because it is so geographically expansive. Physical anthropologists generally saw the Caucasoid race as extending to include North Africa, the Near East, and most of South Asia. 

In 1982, however, immigrant Indian and Pakistani businessmen, looking for low interest SBA loans and affirmative action in government contracting, talked the Reagan Administration into reclassifying them from white/Caucasian to Asian/Oriental, even though grouping Indians with Chinese rather than with Afghans makes little sense from the standpoint of physical, genetic, linguistic, or cultural anthropology. (The Himalayas really are a major barrier.) In America over the last generation or two, being nonwhite pays.

Here's a half-Indian New York Times reporter explaining, in effect, why the word that raises questions about her father's side of the family's legal privileges should be forgotten forever.
Has ‘Caucasian’ Lost Its Meaning?
By SHAILA DEWAN
Published: July 6, 2013

AS a racial classification, the term Caucasian has many flaws, dating as it does from a time when the study of race was based on skull measurements and travel diaries.

As opposed to today, when the study of race is based on assertions of political power in imposing intellectual taboos.
It has long been entirely unmoored from its geographical reference point, the Caucasus region.

Actually, the Caucasus Mountains are near the center of the traditional range of the Caucasoid race. People from the Caucasus region, such as Armenians, were always considered white in America for legal purposes.
 Even now, the word gives discussions of race a weird technocratic gravitas, as when the police insist that you step out of your “vehicle” instead of your car. ... 

I associate the word "Caucasian" with the LAPD from watching Adam 12 in the 1960s. It worked well for police radio talk "See the man, male Caucasian" especially in low light situations. Joseph Wambaugh's LAPD cop novels over the last 40 years have had a running theme of almost always having at least one character who is sort of a white European and sort of not.
The Supreme Court, which can be more colloquial, has used the term in only 64 cases, including a pair from the 1920s that reveal its limitations. In one, the court ruled that a Japanese man could not become a citizen because, although he may have been light-skinned, he was not Caucasian. In the other, an Indian was told that he could not become a citizen because, although he may have been technically Caucasian, he was certainly not white.
Ramzan Kadyrov throwing money
(A similar debate erupted more recently when the Tsarnaev brothers, believed to be responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing, were revealed to be Muslims from the Caucasus.) ... 
There is another reason to use it, said Jennifer L. Hochschild, a professor of government and African-American studies at Harvard. “The court, or some clever clerk, doesn’t really want to use the word white in part because roughly half of Hispanics consider themselves white.”

It's almost as if white Americans could use Hispanic racism to divide and conquer, when we all know the duty of whites is to unite-and-submit to The Others.
There are a number of terms that refer to various degrees of blackness, both current and out of favor: African-American, mulatto, Negro, colored, octaroon.

They are out of favor because lighter-skinned elites like the mulatto Barack Obama saw it was in his career interest to be "black" instead of something more accurate, as he demonstrates at some length in Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.
... IN the South, I was often asked about my ethnic origins, and I had a ready answer. “My father is from India,” I would recite, phrasing it in such a way as to avoid being mistaken for an American Indian. “And my mom is white.” Almost invariably, if I was speaking to black people, they would nod with understanding. If I was speaking to white people, I would get a puzzled look. “What kind of white?” they would ask. Only when I explained the Norwegian, Scottish and German mix of my ancestry would I get the nod. 
I theorized that this was because blacks understood “white” as a category, both historical and contemporary — a coherent group that wielded power and excluded others. Whites, I believed, were less comfortable with that notion. 
But Matthew Pratt Guterl, the author of “The Color of Race in America, 1900-1940,” had a different take. “They’re trying to trace your genealogy and figure out what your qualities are,” he said. “They’re looking in your face, they’re looking in the slope of your nose, the shape of your brow. There’s an effort to discern the truth of the matter, because all whitenesses are not equal.” In other words, they weren’t rejecting the category, they were policing its boundaries. 
Such racial boundaries have increasingly been called into question in the debate over affirmative action, once regarded as a form of restitution to descendants of slaves, but now complicated by all sorts of questions about who, exactly, is being helped. “What if some of them aren’t poor, what if some of them don’t have American parentage, what if some of them are really stupid?” Ms. Painter, the historian, asked. “There’s all kinds of characteristics that we stuff into race without looking, and then they pop out and we think, ‘I can’t deal with that.’ ” 
Doubtless, this society will continue to classify people by race for some time to come. And as we lumber toward justice, some of those classifications remain useful, even separate from other factors like economic class. Caucasian, though? Not so much. 
Shaila Dewan is an economics reporter for The New York Times.

We must lumber toward justice by continuing to provide Ms. Dewan's relatives on the paternal side taxpayer subsidized loans.

And ever since the Reagan Administration did such a huge favor for Indians by removing them from the official definition of white / Caucasian, they've been voting Republican ever since out of gratitude.

Oh, wait, the opposite appears to have happened.

No doubt, we can count on Republican deep thinkers like Kurt Bardella to figure all this out.

70 comments:

Anonymous said...

I don't know about Asian Indians, but one thing I noticed about American Indians...

there was a time when we were told to call Indians 'Native Americans', and this was as oft-heard as the demand that blacks be called 'African-Americans'.

but I notice that most people, even liberals, are just calling Indians 'Indians' these days.

I guess no one really cares about the red man.

Anonymous said...

These are continental labels. India is in the Asian continent, so Indians are Asians. But then, Middle East in Asia too, so...

Btw, the division of Asia and Europe is arbitrary, so all Asians should be, continentally at least, labeled as Europeans or all Europeans ought to be labeled as Asian.

Anonymous said...

And we say no one should be called 'Indian' since modern India is an artificial construct created by the Brits.

Anonymous said...

It's better if the racial animus driving this process is out in the open imo so "White" or Caucasian being re-defined as European White is fine by me.

Anonymous said...

Frankly, I've always favored Caucasoid over Caucasian. Caucasian is too ambiguous (is he referring to people from the Caucasus or to White people in general ?). Caucasoid, in contrast, avoids such confusion.

Caucasoid also has an advantage over White, at least in terms of big-tenters like Steve. The use of White as a racial category in the USA seems to be somehow bound up with ideas of degrees of Whiteness. Hence, some idiots think that a Nordic featured man (very pale skin, blond hair, blue eyes) is somehow "Whiter" than a Mediterranean featured man (olive skin, dark hair, brown eyes).Caucasoid seems to be free of such notions of greater degrees of Whiteness. People seem to understand that a Med-featured man is just as Caucasoid as a Nordic-featured man.

Anonymous said...

"People from the Caucasus region, such as Armenians, were always considered white in America for legal purposes."

Armenians are atypical for the Caucasus region. A small, monoethnic, geographically Caucasian Armenia is a creation of the Russian Empire. Before the 19th century Armenians were a purely diasporic people, a mercantile minority spread over a large area that extended down to the Mediterranean. They were united by blood and religion, not by geography. And they look less European, more Persian-like, I'd say, than typical Caucasus natives. Just from appearances I'd guess that they're a genetic outlier in the Caucasus.

A Working Class American said...

wait, we are still pretending that the GOP sellout was caused by the republicans mistakenly thinking that many immigrants would be republicans.

Because, um, it seems obvious to me that the GOP sells out its white base on affirmative action and immigration because the Big Money will do good things for them if they sell out and do bad things to them if they do not sell out.

Anonymous said...

No immigrant groups should be allowed to get A.A.

Btw, what happens when there are not enough white taxpayers to go around and cough up all these goodies for non-whites?

Anonymous said...

I was just reading up on the genetics of the Indian subcontinent and everyone seems to be a blend of Caucasoid and Australoid in varying degrees with the upper castes being more Caucasoid. It looks like the Aryan invasion from the northwest of the aboriginal Dravidians is largely true.

Perspective said...

If the US defined its non-white population the way Canada does, that tent would become quite small. Here we have very specific categories based on region and even nationality:

Chinese, South Asian, Black, Filipino, Latin American, Arab, West Asian,Southeast Asian, Korean and Japanese.
Aboriginals have a separate category that is broken down in to First Nation, Metis and Inuit.
I've wondered what the white percentage of the US would be if it used the categories Canada does.

Anonymous said...

I'm Indian. I don't consider myself Caucasian. I see Europeans and Arabs as very distant racial cousins, but not the same race. South Asians (especially from the populous and core civilization of the Ganges plain) are practically their own racial category, with of course several different groups within.

Anonymous said...

Also Steve is obsessed with this idea that Indians have gotten ahead in the US by getting special govt loans for minorities. As an Indian, I don't know anyone whose gotten one of these loans, but then again my family belongs to a professional circle (as opposed to motel or convenience store).

Anonymous said...

"People from the Caucasus region, such as Armenians, were always considered white in America for legal purposes."

Armenians are atypical for the Caucasus region.


And the Caucasus region itself was both physically isolated (mountains, other difficult terrain, few roads) from the rest of the world, and had an isolationist culture. The geographic barriers helped save the Caucasian Armenians from the Genocide.

A small, monoethnic, geographically Caucasian Armenia is a creation of the Russian Empire. Before the 19th century Armenians were a purely diasporic people, a mercantile minority spread over a large area that extended down to the Mediterranean.

What is now Armenia started out as the northeastern extension (almost a colony) of classical Armenia, and ended up under Persian (and later Russian) rule. Armenians were never purely diasporic. That is Turkish propaganda. There always was a geographic Armenia throughout recorded history; it just moved around, and about 100 years ago, drastically shrank in size.

They were united by blood and religion, not by geography. And they look less European, more Persian-like, I'd say, than typical Caucasus natives. Just from appearances I'd guess that they're a genetic outlier in the Caucasus.

Armenians, being Indo-European, are certainly a linguistic outlier in the Caucasus.

Whiskey said...

Steve, people like you and me will be defined as untermenschen, aka "White" and everyone else, like the Kennedys, the Bidens, the Obamas, the Cuomos, the Pitt-Jolies, will be defined as non-White and thus privileged, some more privileged than others like all aristocracies.

That is the way of it. The Times writer from India merely is asserting her aristocratic privilege as a non-White. One Bill Clinton famously claimed as the first Black President.

Indeed you could argue that the Nazis had it all wrong, the true Master Race was always Black people, in that Whites cannot wait to submit and obey them, by and large. That Blackness itself, and the qualities of extraversion, aggressiveness, lower average IQs, higher testosterone, and so on, makes Blacks in any social setting not deliberately informed by violent boundary setting by Whites (Segregation/Jim Crow/Lynching) results in the absolute worship of Black people and in particular larger than life Black personalities, such as Oprah, Obama, Martin Luther King Jr, Mohammed Ali, and LeBron James.

Indeed, Whites are fascinated by and obsess over, which city will have the most physically dominant large Black men to win the NBA championship next year. No one is forcing them to this -- it is all voluntary.

If the diaspora Chinese are a market dominant minority, are Black people in America a non-market charisma dominant minority? Destined to rule by virtue of charisma? Evidence suggests, maybe.

Anonymous said...


You can't blame the dotters for acting this way. If white folks set up the rewards system so that certain groups are favored, people are gonna want to belong to specially categorized groups favored for the prizes.

ben tillman said...

I don't know about Asian Indians, but one thing I noticed about American Indians...

there was a time when we were told to call Indians 'Native Americans', and this was as oft-heard as the demand that blacks be called 'African-Americans'.

but I notice that most people, even liberals, are just calling Indians 'Indians' these days.

I guess no one really cares about the red man.


Indians (of course) had nothing to do with the push for a new name. They were fine with "Indians". But, let's face it, Indians are barely above Whites on the totem pole of racial victimology. The Left argues that White rule is illegitimate, but, if so, what do you do about the Indians?

Ignore or demean them.

There's a reason the producers of Seinfeld constructed an overtly racist episode to feature an Indian who was portrayed as an Indian giver.

Anonymous said...

"Armenians are atypical for the Caucasus region. A small, monoethnic, geographically Caucasian Armenia is a creation of the Russian Empire. Before the 19th century Armenians were a purely diasporic people, a mercantile minority spread over a large area that extended down to the Mediterranean. They were united by blood and religion, not by geography. And they look less European, more Persian-like, I'd say, than typical Caucasus natives. Just from appearances I'd guess that they're a genetic outlier in the Caucasus."

The Armenian language is Indo-European and closely related to Greek, so that definitely makes them outliers in the region. They are surrounded by Altaic-speaking Turks and Azeris to the east and west, and Caucasian-speaking Georgians to the North.

Anonymous said...

Why is there 'asian' in caucasian?

How about 'caucopean' for white europeans and 'caucasian' for asiatic 'aryans' and semites?

Anonymous said...

In theory, I've heard about Asians qualifying for certain government loans, but I've never seen it in practice. Even if these benefits do exist, they are outweighed by the discrimination Asians face in college admissions. You'd think Indians might regret getting themselves classified as Asians for that reason alone

Herodotus said...

Btw, the division of Asia and Europe is arbitrary

What?

King Tigranes said...

Before the 19th century Armenians were a purely diasporic people

Say what? The Armenians have inhabited an area centering around Lake Van since distant antiquity.

Anonymous said...

Evangelical Christianity makes people stupid.

Glossy said...

About the picture of Ramzan Kadyrov:

No, he's not trying to explain to the leaders of the Chechen Deaf Society that he'll soon be flying to Moscow on that plane they see behind him. The outstretched arms are an essential part of lezginka, the national dance of Chechnya and of the entire Caucasus.

Spike Gomes said...

All American Indians I've known have referred to themselves by their tribal affiliation, or when talking about themselves in the aggregate just called themselves "Indians".

When I lived in the Southwest and in the Northwest I had to deal with them on occasion. They were always polite and courteous to me, even the two lost drunk ones I encountered on the roads of Phoenix one evening. I gather that may have something to do with the fact that I looked fairly native; "What tribe are you?" was a question I was asked multiple times. White people I knew usually had stories about encounters with belligerent Indians and how dysfunctional life on the rez was.

They're great storytellers when they're in the mood. When I was a salesclerk, I became acquainted with one guy who had a long entertaining story to go with every time he had to come into the store to buy a part. No idea if it was BS or not. They certainly seem to consider Hawaiians a type of Indian. When I first met the above guy, he asked me what tribe I was and when I told him I was actually from Hawaii he said: "Hawaiians? Them's just Indians with sailboats, brother."

Aaron Gross said...

"If I was speaking to white people, I would get a puzzled look."

Well, that's because you didn't answer their question. They asked you what your "ethnic origins" were, not what your race was. "White" is not an ethnie, hence their puzzled response.

Blacks probably didn't care about your ethnic origins (it would have been helpful to know how they phrased the question), hence their acceptance of your answer. They were interested in your race. For them, German-Americans are Jewish-Americans are Polish-Americans are white. "Half Indian, half White" is a good enough answer to their question.

hardly said...

There are nearly 1.5 billion "indians" - if you consider that a racial term, it includes 1.2 billion Indians,200million pakis and 200 million bangladeshis, as well as several millions in Nepal and Sri Lanka. We are a mix of caucasoid, australoid and east asian elements.

There's far more of us than spurious racial groups like pacific islander or Hispanic, yet we are either called caucasoids or Asians, neither of which is truly evocative. caucasoid immediately brings white Europeans to mind. Asian brings mongoloids to mind.

Anonymous said...

"Armenians were never purely diasporic. That is Turkish propaganda. There always was a geographic Armenia throughout recorded history"

But in this large area, which Armenians called Armenia, they were a minority for many centuries.

Anonymous said...

India is indeed a melange of Caucasoids and others, with those in the south being noticeably darker-hued than in the north. This also conforms to linguistic and genetic analyses, which are now starting to emerge.

I suspect Indian emigrants are by and large drawn from the more Caucasoid segment, and might be expected to be more capable than the average for the country as a whole. That having been said, it is truly a country of staggering contrasts, with a large and thriving upper class of rich, educated and very smart people at the one end, and a larger, desperately poor segment on the other, with literally everything in between.

But to a casual observer, the wealth does seem to correspond to a quasi-racial spectrum.

There is a lot to be learned from this country, but probably we won't get to find out the full detail.

Well worth a visit; one of the safest places to see life in the raw, or unimaginable beauty and luxury as well.

Anon.

Anonymous said...

The high point of cultural sympathy for the American Indians was a Val Kilmer movie. That tells you everything you need to know.

Bottledwater said...

If it weren't for all the Republicans obsessed with war on terror (which many perceive as a war on non-white caucasoids) and Christianity (which is scary to Indians because they are either of different religions or pro-science), Indians would vote Republican in droves. In Canada where Christianity is kept out of politics, it's very common for Indians to vote conservative.

The problem for Republicans is their base is so narrow: white male rich anti-science christain.

Bottledwater said...

I was just reading up on the genetics of the Indian subcontinent and everyone seems to be a blend of Caucasoid and Australoid in varying degrees with the upper castes being more Caucasoid. It looks like the Aryan invasion from the northwest of the aboriginal Dravidians is largely true.

According to Richard Lynn, whites have an average IQ of 99, non-white caucasoids average IQ 84, and australoids average IQ 62. This may explain why india's IQ is 82, the average of all three groups.

I wonder if within India there's a correlation between IQ and skin color.

Auntie Analogue said...


Okay, ready, gang?

All together now...:

I'd like to teach / the world to Singh...

Anonymous said...

>How about 'caucopean' for white >europeans

So the lady at the DMV is filling out my info and she asks me, "You're Caucopean?" And I'm like "You better believe it, at least three times a night since I turned 60. It's terrible!"

Thanks folks, I'll be here all night.

Dr Van Nostrand said...

One half white half white reporter makes the claim and Steve based on this one tainted sample concludes that pretty much all Indians feel this way.
Steve shame on you-you used to do marketing and statistics for a living!

Most Indians have no idea that they would be considered white by some obscure anthropologist.

They are just happy not be considered black!

I for one dont want Indians to be considered white in any way.

The Indians as whites meme is really a Trojan horse for disillusioned Europeans to steal our heritage and horribly pervert -see Aryan race,swastika etc etc

So please pretty please with sugar on top, dont call us white and please dont show any interest in the Vedas or Upanishads.

Thank you

Ex Submarine Officer said...

"Well, that's because you didn't answer their question. They asked you what your "ethnic origins" were, not what your race was. "White" is not an ethnie, hence their puzzled response."

Since you've decided to define "white" for white people, cough it up, Aaron, since you seem to be an expert on this. Is jewishness a religion, ethny, or race?

No weasel words please or anything how jewishness is sui generis.

Dr Van Nostrand said...

oops reading comp fail on my part!(one of my worst skims) The chick doesnt want Indians to be considered but that no one else should be white

But then again, doesnt this imply my previous (mis)interpretation.

If no one is white(or Caucasian/Caucasoid) then everyone is white!

Technically Steve ,it is Tibet that seperates India from China, not the Himalayas per se.
Also it is the Hindu Kush that seperates Afghanistan

Even these did not prevent significant cultural and racial cross pollination over the millenia.

Till about 900 AD, Afghanistan was considered a part of India as Indian kings ruled that area.

Many of the main characters of Indian literature and epics originate in Afghanistan ,specifically Gandhar(today Kandahar).


Anon:
It looks like the Aryan invasion from the northwest of the aboriginal Dravidians is largely true."

There is no proof of this in either archaelogy,linguistics,history or literature.
Who are Dravidians? How old are they? When did they come into India? What was their original physical appearance? The ancient Tamil texts(circa 700 BC) describe them of having a bright yellowish complexion with straight noses.There are records of wide spread invasions of Australoid Kallars.

Similarly in North Central India, there were Munda(Austronesian) invasions which altered the genetics of that region.The so called "aboriginal" tribals may be new comers and the "Aryan invaders" may have a more ancient presence.

Despite all the nonsense of Tamil being 10,000 years old, there is barely any Tamil literature that predates 900 BC and this seems to be a primitive megalith culture.

Furthermore the current Australoid Tamils arent the alpha and omega of Dravidian civilization as they like to claim, you have other groups like Tulu(a rather fair skinned people) and Kannadigas (dark Caucasoids) who vie for "Dravidian" cred!

Anonymous said...

I guess 'Indo-Aryan' is a no no too.

How about Indo-Semitic since Thomas Friedman seems to have the hots for the dots.

rob said...

She has a point. The huge numbers of off-whites outside of Europe, and the small numbers of off-whites (like Gypsies) in Europe never experienced the selective pressures that turned Western Europeans into intelligent and decent people who can create civilizations. Well, civilized civilizations that at least occasionally rise above warrior elites stealing from peasants.

An implicit part of being 'white' in the US is the ability to fit in and function within the white population. That standard is why the 'Anglo' population thinks that 'white' Hispanics aren't white. Similarly, the Chechens like the Tsarnaev brothers may are pale but far too primitive, violent, and clannish to be 'white.'

Maybe the whole diversity thing should be scapped: split the population into white and Other. Then all the Others compete for the diversity slots in college admissions and such. No need to work out how Hispanics and blacks and Asians stack up for diversity: they're equal. Equality is important. Also, by being in direct competition with each other, maybe whites would catch a break.

Dr Van Nostrand said...

If it weren't for all the Republicans obsessed with war on terror (which many perceive as a war on non-white caucasoids) and Christianity (which is scary to Indians because they are either of different religions or pro-science), Indians would vote Republican in droves. In Canada where Christianity is kept out of politics, it's very common for Indians to vote conservative.

The problem for Republicans is their base is so narrow: white male rich anti-science christain."


I dont think Indian Americans (who are mostly Hindu) have any problem with mainstream Christians. They are more likely to wish you Merry Christmas or approve of nativity scenes on public property than white liberals.

What Hindus in America find repugnant are the hardcore CBN types which deride pretty much any non Protestant sect(including Catholics) as demonic.

It is no coincidence that Hindus in general are lukewarm at best towards Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley as they abandoned their respective faiths to become rather conservative Christians.

I think many minorities dont vote Republican not because of "lets get whitey" but they assume that Republicans dont want them.

Anonymous said...

"In Canada where Christianity is kept out of politics, it's very common for Indians to vote conservative."

Very common != majority.

It makes no sense to throw away core appeal unless you're going to get the majority of the group you're changing for.

Anonymous said...

A couple of weeks ago it was reported that only a minority of new births in the USA are now 'white'. (I am always of the opinion that 'white' as a racially descriptive term in official US circles should be replaced by 'European', I'm afraid that traditional American squeamishness at the term, no doubt due to the British colonial past, and the 18th century desire to make a new start and a 'new people' is now historically redundant and just rather silly now, by using the term 'European' and thus having implied solidarity with kins-folk across the water is psycholigically necessary in the imminent age of 'white' minority. Incidentally white minority USA is here to stay and will only become more adverse to whites).

Not wishing to shock or offend, I'm afraid that 'white' America has had it, it's done, it's finished, the goose is cooked. Like it or not, the future is Brazil. I'm not gloating or anything (in fact I'm horrified by the prospect), but this is the price of JFK, LBJ and MLK. And the Jowlhound and Reagan did f*ck all for white Americans. The less said about Dubya, the better.

Anonymous said...

Already been said but

"Before the 19th century Armenians were a purely diasporic people"

They weren't.

.

"And we say no one should be called 'Indian' since modern India is an artificial construct created by the Brits."

It isn't.

The Indian sub-continenet makes perfect sense as a geographical unit and Indians or South Asians make a lot of sense as a racial category because they're a unique mixture.

.

Regardless of all that, the driving force behind this is who, whom not logical taxonomy.

As White dispossession continues various groups *will* make sure they're not classified as White for practical reasons. There may be a game in guessing in which order though.

I'm not sure if South Asian is fully detached yet. Arab i'd guess would be soon. Not sure what would come next. Jews will want to be classified as both.

Conatus said...

There are few law reviews that are critical of Affirmative Action. However there is one that is critical in the way of criticism by dissection and display of the facts.
"Gross Presumptions: Determining Group Eligibility for Federal Procurement Preferences" by George La Noue(who is not a lawyer).

It is online:
http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1352&context=lawreview

It details the history of government set asides and who is considered 'socially disadvantaged' by virtue of how they racially classify themselves.(13 CFR 124.103). It discusses the fact that these 'socially disadvantaged' groups can have 750,000 dollars in assets and still be considered socially disadvantaged.(p.108 of actual law review). It also details the gyrations groups have gone through to get themselves listed as 'socially disadvantaged'(with 3/4 of a mil) to step ahead in line for Government contracts.(p.126). For example the Stans are not included as socially disadvantaged and there is a short discussion of why the residents of Afghanistan and Kasakhstan etc are not included.(p. 153).It is a little old(2000) but as far as I can tell, still germane. Things seem pretty concretized once you get yourself on the list of 'socially disadvantaged' victims of Y T.

Anonymous said...

"Mongoloid, he was a mongoloid, happier than you and me."

Anonymous said...

In "Letters of a Javanese Princess," by a young noblewoman under Dutch colonialism named Kartini who has a holiday in her honor, she always refers to Indonesia as India. Even if one considers the identification a feint on Obama's part, it was a clever and historically grounded one (Indonesia the state being relatively new).

Perspective said...

"In Canada where Christianity is kept out of politics, it's very common for Indians to vote conservative."

True, but many also voted for the far left NDP. I think many South Asians (and others) voted for either the Conservatives or the NDP in the last election because of the scandals plaguing the Liberal party. The collapse of the Liberal party drove many to the right or the left in the last election. The Liberal party is rapidly gaining support again after Pierre Trudeaus'son, Justin Trudeau, was appointed leader. It will be interesting to see if many of these heavily immigrant ridings reward the Liberal party with votes once again.

Anonymous said...

"but I notice that most people, even liberals, are just calling Indians 'Indians' these days."

How about "first nations."

Anonymous said...

"As an Indian, I don't know anyone whose gotten one of these loans, but then again my family belongs to a professional circle (as opposed to motel or convenience store)."

Perhaps you need to stay at a Best Western motel on your next family vacation. Their latest television commercial features mostly brown people as hotel keepers. Another one of the jobs white people won't do in America.

Anonymous said...

In Canada where Christianity is kept out of politics, it's very common for Indians to vote conservative.

I'll also say that the Conservative party and its various predecessors in the 90s and 00s was the only pro-business Canadian party. Combine that with the lack of serious racism and religionism in Canadian politics, even the mainstream right wing, and you get a winner for Indo-Canadians.

Anonymous said...

"For them, German-Americans are Jewish-Americans are Polish-Americans are white."

Right, but even as a Jew, I've noticed that most Jews seem to think that Jewish is the same thing as white. In Israel, 60% of the Jewish population is non-white(mostly Arab Jewish).
In America, 25% of all Jewish kids are non-white.

But for many reasons, we never hear about these people(much less see them).

"That standard is why the 'Anglo' population thinks that 'white' Hispanics aren't white. Similarly, the Chechens like the Tsarnaev brothers may are pale but far too primitive, violent, and clannish to be 'white.'"

A few points: Well, yes, but that's also because even if 50% of hispanics want to see themselves as white, very few are. For example, a paternal European grandfather is enough for some hispanics(actually mestizos) to think of themselves as white. Argentina supposedly has a 98% white population. Genetic testing has suggested otherwise(closer to 7%).

As for the Tsarnaev brothers, they are not pale at all.

See: http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01718/bomber_2g_1718813a.jpg

That's very Middle Eastern.

_____________________________

Generally speaking, I think she has a point about retiring the Caucasian category. 'White' is problematic too, but it is better. The main issue is the establishment's need to continually broadening the definition of who's white.

eah said...

The nerve.

Jefferson said...

[QUOTE]Caucasoid also has an advantage over White, at least in terms of big-tenters like Steve. The use of White as a racial category in the USA seems to be somehow bound up with ideas of degrees of Whiteness. Hence, some idiots think that a Nordic featured man (very pale skin, blond hair, blue eyes) is somehow "Whiter" than a Mediterranean featured man (olive skin, dark hair, brown eyes).Caucasoid seems to be free of such notions of greater degrees of Whiteness. People seem to understand that a Med-featured man is just as Caucasoid as a Nordic-featured man.[/QUOTE]

Blond hair and blue eyes are seen as the physical epitome of Whiteness because extremely few Nonwhites have these traits.

A White person with with brown eyes and black hair/very dark brown hair is not physically seen by many as the epitome of Whiteness because they share the same hair and eye color as the vast majority of Nonwhites.

You can also blame Adolf Hitler for brainwashing millions and millions of people into believing that only people with light eyes and blond, red, or light brown hair are the true Whites.


Anonymous said...

So Dr. Van Nostrand, what is your scenario on the peopling of India? Who are the groups who mixed and where did they come from?

Svigor said...

7/6/13, 4:55 PM

The real power you describe is Jewish and "gentile" white power, of course. You imply that there's some kind of free market, which is absurd. Whites aren't afraid to take blacks down several pegs because of blacks, they're afraid of the reprisals from whites, with Jews in the vanguard.

JSM said...

"I guess no one really cares about the red man."

I do. Well, at least so far as my willingness to bear my White Woman's Burden goes (which, liberals having stretched my compassion beyond its design limits, ain't very far).

Unlike opportunistic dot-Indians currently flooding in here on H1-B visa scams to undercut White American men's wages, the feather-Indians really *did* get a shitty deal from us American-Americans.
See, the Sioux, when they surrendered, were promised in a Senate-ratified treaty to get the Black Hills forever if they'd give us the rest. That lasted about 2 seconds until gold was discovered, then they were scooped up and plopped on reservations without even so much as a starter buffalo herd.
If I have any White Guilt 'tall, which is questionable, the ONLY non-Whites I have any sympathy for are the folks who were actually living in the geographical areas that now comprise the United States before my ancestors arrived-- certainly not current imminvaders. But, hey, what do I know? I'm just a dumb, inbred, knuckle-dragging racist, so they say.

Leftists are such pukes.

Anonymous said...

For whites living in Europe, best term: Indigenous White Europeans

For whites living outside Europe, best term:

Diaspora Europeans



We should dispense with 'Caucasian' altogether.

...

World according to Gubbler. said...

I hear Indians and Pakistanis are sexually very aggressive in the UK.

Maybe they should be called
Cock-Asians.

Anonymous said...

hear Indians and Pakistanis are sexually very aggressive in the UK.


Not really the Indians. Its the Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi muslims on the rampage. The MSM tend to refer to them as 'asian' to try and cover for our muslim friends. Apparently its OK for hindu Indians to take some of the flak for that.

In a similar way they will refer to east European criminals when they are actually talking about gypsy/roma criminals. Again its wrong to victimise the roma themselves but its perfectly OK to try and make Poles and suchlike look bad.

Im sure if Id done journalism at college I would understand why this is done but obviously Im too stupid.

Anonymous said...

You can also blame Adolf Hitler for brainwashing millions and millions of people into believing that only people with light eyes and blond, red, or light brown hair are the true Whites.

I guess Adolf is heavily involved in Hollywood these days, given the number of blue eyed, blond white guys I see playing the bad guy. Or are they not white?

Its all so complicated!

Dr Van Nostrand said...

Anon 2:23

Wow that would be really long post,nay a book, to answer your question !

Suffice to say, I think a great deal of confusion would be removed when you redefine and establish categories of what "Aryan", "Dravidian", "Munda","Bhils/Vedda" constitute and where they come from

Aryan or rather Arya is the North Indian core ethncity which has defined Hindu beliefs customs,rituals and by extension Indian civilization over the millenia.
THey are not blonde blue eyed types but most like resemble an olive complexioned,dark wavy hair,straigt nose with a tallish and lean physique
Dravidian speakers are likely late arrivals around 1200 BC to Southern India via land routes(Southern Pakistan) and sea. They most likely hail from West Asia. They are a combination of dark skinned (Elamites) and light skinned people(Neolithic people related to Basques,Sumerians and Minoans)
They found a Vedic Arya people already residing there and mixed with them.
There were also invasions/migrations of Munda(South East type) into North Eastern and Southern India as well as Australoid migrations from within and without India.Not all aboriginals were as backward as the Australians,some could sail well.The Kallar/Kalabhra invasions in Tamil Nadu wrecked havoc around 200 AD and destroyed many historical records and geneologies.
Their origins are unknown, they could be a former tributary tribe the sea faring Tamils brought in from their escapades in South East Asia.They are Australoid in type and comprised the Bhils,Gonds,Vedda and other tribe who contributed heavily to the South Indian gene pool

What happened in Southern India is similar to what happened in Mexico over the years.As there was explosion of indio and mestizo, similarly there was an explosion of Australoid type population due to the mixing with the Arrya/Dravidian ,their acceptance into mainstream society as well their being quite fertile.

Now we come to Northwestern India, that area always had more fair skinned people due to the climate,altitude and latitude.
However over the years, a different type of fairer people ,distinct from the native type had invaded including Persians,Scythians,Arabs and what have you.
So that gave the region a more Middle Eastern and Central Asian(back then Central Asia was not just Turkic but had blonde Persian speaking types) appearance customs and languages.
Historians in their ignorance consider the latter the original "Aryan" as mistakenly consider that region to the first home of Vedic peoples in India.
Jury is still out on the hearth of Arya culture in India. But strong evidence points to Eastern UP/Bihar area.
However if you go by the legends ,the king/sage Manu(our Adam and Noah rolled into one) originated from what is today Tamil Nadu and travelled on a ship during the flood and ended in the Himalayas,not unlike Noah ended up on Ararat

I postulate that this version makes considerably more sense and has historical backing than the conventional wisdome!

Dr Van Nostrand said...


hear Indians and Pakistanis are sexually very aggressive in the UK.


Not really the Indians. Its the Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi muslims on the rampage. The MSM tend to refer to them as 'asian' to try and cover for our muslim friends. Apparently its OK for hindu Indians to take some of the flak for that."


I dont understand this lots approach to foreign women. For them it is not really about sexual pleasure but conquest.They are at war against white Christians and any small victory against is what gives them pleasure. Sex or rather rape is merely a tool for advancing their conquest.


In a similar way they will refer to east European criminals when they are actually talking about gypsy/roma criminals. Again its wrong to victimise the roma themselves but its perfectly OK to try and make Poles and suchlike look bad.

Im sure if Id done journalism at college I would understand why this is done but obviously Im too stupid"

LOL I think the most comical whitewashing was when Somali Islamist terrorist were referred into in a story as "Asians"!

Jefferson said...

[QUOTE]You can also blame Adolf Hitler for brainwashing millions and millions of people into believing that only people with light eyes and blond, red, or light brown hair are the true Whites.

I guess Adolf is heavily involved in Hollywood these days, given the number of blue eyed, blond white guys I see playing the bad guy. Or are they not white?

Its all so complicated![/QUOTE]

What do blond guys playing villains in Hollywood films have to do with who is White and who is not White ?

It wasn't Jews who invented the ideology of Nordicism which excludes Caucasians with darker features from being considered White.

I have blue eyes, but my hair is very dark brown almost black.

So I have Nordic colored eyes and Mediterranean/Middle Eastern hair color.

By Nordicism standards I would not be considered White, because my hair color is more commonly found in Southern European and Middle Eastern countries than it is in Northern European and Scandinavian countries.

Anonymous said...

How about starting out with not calling Zimmerman 'white' and not calling black thugs 'teens' or 'youths'.



JSM said...

"It wasn't Jews who invented the ideology of Nordicism which excludes Caucasians with darker features from being considered White.

I have blue eyes, but my hair is very dark brown almost black.

So I have Nordic colored eyes and Mediterranean/Middle Eastern hair color.

By Nordicism standards I would not be considered White, because my hair color is more commonly found in Southern European and Middle Eastern countries than it is in Northern European and Scandinavian countries."


Nordics are White, to be sure, and Meds are not Nords. These are simple facts. But anytime the discussion comes up, you guys go off, "point, sputter, because HITLER!"

So, why is it you guys are sooooo touchy and constantly sniffing around for any hint that us Nords might, possibly, ever, entertain the most fleeting thought that you're not White enough for us?

Why do you care so much?

Aren't you proud to be Med?

Why IS it you're so sensitive that us Nords might want to stay what we are, Nord?


Isn't it, in truth, because you, yourselves, bear a deep, discomforting sense of inferiority that you are desperately trying to deny to yourself? That, somehow, if you browbeat us Nords enough times to "stop insisting you're not White", that if you receive unconditional love and acceptance from us, you'll, finally, be able to love yourself?

neil craig said...

Anybody who classes French as white and Spanish as no-white Hispanics is clearly selling something.

A few days ago steve mentioned the basques in this connection. They come from an area straddling the Franco Spanish border.

The first settlers of Quebec were heavily drawn from the French Basque country.

Though they are an intransigent minority in Canada, making a grievance of being French I very much doubt they would like to be called non-white Hispanics.

Dr Van Nostrand said...


Why IS it you're so sensitive that us Nords might want to stay what we are, Nord?


Isn't it, in truth, because you, yourselves, bear a deep, discomforting sense of inferiority that you are desperately trying to deny to yourself? That, somehow, if you browbeat us Nords enough times to "stop insisting you're not White", that if you receive unconditional love and acceptance from us, you'll, finally, be able to love yourself?


JSM you are either an idiot or are attempting to (clumsily) diverting from what Jefferson asserted.

Jefferson never claimed Nords and Meds are the same thing. Do you even know how to read?

He complained about Nords not considering them white.

It is a valid complaint.

It was stupid enough for YOU to go on a Hitler tangent and now again go around projecting inferiority to Meds. Truth if Nords were so well adjusted, they wouldnt go around created falsehoods taking credit for Med created civilizations(not to mention Egyptian-but but Ramses was a redhead!!)

Enough of your stupid feminine shaming tactics, either shut up and change your kotex or debate like a dude with logic and reason.I thought your Nords were apparently aces at that.

But then again when I view the incredibly clumsy arguments and idiot rants on this board whose contributors are apparently well educated, I shudder to think of the average Nord's abilities of deduction outside of his day job!

Anonymous said...



For them it is not really about sexual pleasure but conquest.

Which feminists have been pointing out for ages which is why the appalling behavior of Muslim grooming gangs has been criticized by such people as .... (crickets)

Anonymous said...

first off the Aryan invasion theory led by max Mueller a guy which died I 1899 is ot a true theory it got debunked there was no invasion and Aryan history goes way back.whites are ot Aryan at all period nor should they classify themselves as Caucasian as north east Indians were the first Caucasian named BROWN CAUCASIAN. Asians are NOT white nor are east indian south Asians!nixon and max Mueller are full of bullshit theorys and non eof what they say are true the rig veda was the earliest and first in the Sanskrit and mentions nothing about white Europeans.

Anonymous said...

Regarding Armenians.

The Armenian language is a satem language. Greek is centum. Armenian has no affinity with Greek. Armenian is closest to the Iranian languages. In terms of phenotypes, anyone who is familiar with caucasians will tell you that armenians basically look like azeris and are pretty close to kurds too. Keep in mind that Azeris are just turkified iranians and 1/4th of iran's population is azeri. So, Armenians have had a long-standing connection with iranians. Cypriots aren't actual Greeks, they're eteocypriots who were hellenized, they're actually related to semitic groups like Druze.


As for Ashkenazi Jews, they're hybrids between europeans and middle easterners. It's interesting to note that they're closest to southern italians and greeks (who have some near eastern/anatolian type ancestry from the neolithic). If you have noticed a lot of these people can often overlap with mixed latinos and mixed asians. That's why they traditionally haven't been regarded as true whites, but rather borderline. Look at the leader of the Golden Dawn, for example. Chechens/Northern Caucasians are actually slightly closer to northern europeans and whiter than sicilians are. So, they can also be in the borderline category. Georgians are Turkish level. Armenians are closer to kurds. The original us census didn't even have a 'caucasian' category, it was just white. It switched to white/caucasian later on. So, obviously, the terms aren't synonymous. I don't know why some people assume ashkenazis, etc. to be completely white, many ashkenazis actually look very turkish, like sarah silverman, for example. It's most likely the result of ignorance, people haven't met many middle easterners enough to understand what they are like in the U.S., with the exception of areas like Michigan, where no one regards them as white.

Anonymous said...

Caucasian refers to a lineage of people. Not skin tone. It's been confirmed by genetics that groups Italian, English (white people) and Iranians, Indians and Lapp people are the same race, Caucasian. Granted East Asians, specifically Korean, Japanese & Chinese are also very closely related to Caucasians as well, they descended from them. So the real question is should East Asians also be considered Caucasians? They have Caucasian traits such as straight hair and often fair skin. Is there any logical argument to keep them as a separate race?

Source: The genetic distance map made in 2002 which is an estimate of 18 world human groups by a neighbour-joining method based on 23 kinds of genetic information. It was made by Saitou Naruya (Japanese:斎藤成也) professor at the (Japanese) National Institute for Genetics.