I haven't checked the statistics lately, but what I'm noticing in daily life is that the Latino surge into LA may have peaked, with ridiculously high home prices driving Mexicans to other states. Instead, Southern California is becoming more and more dominated by ... well, I don't know the term for them. They're typically white people from western Asia who have strong small business moneymaking chops, don't mind crowding an extended family into one house, and maybe aren't real enthusiastic about following government regulations and paying taxes: e.g., Iranians, Armenians, Israelis, Lebanese, Syrians, etc.
They often come from exotic ethnic minorities -- for example, my wife used to frequent a shop owned by the mother of Paula Abdul, the judge on American Idol, who is a Jewish Arab of Syrian origin. Other shopkeepers have prominently displayed pictures of the Virgin Mary with Arabic inscriptions. Many of the Iranians are Jewish.
The funny thing is that there isn't even a collective word for them: Asian Caucasians? Men with deep voices? The gold chain nestled in chest hair set? The second coming of the Ottoman Empire?
A reader writes:
"Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a politically correct synonym. I suspect it's because you're trying to aggregate groups who hate each other (Arabs vs. Israelis, Armenians vs. Turks), so there's no political pressure for a particular PC term to identify the group as a whole."
That makes sense. Even though the West Asian immigrants seem quite similar culturally to average Americans like me, back in the Old Country they hate each other too much to form umbrella organizations here. In contrast, the Nixon Administration could group Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans together because, while they didn't particularly like each other, they were too isolated from each other on different islands back home, and in different parts of America, to really hate each other So ambitious activists saw the advantages in political muscle for getting affirmative action handouts of claiming to represent a bigger synthetic umbrella category: Hispanics / Latinos.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
49 comments:
Dolma Diaspora?
Latin America has the Palestinians:
http://headheeb.blogmosis.com/archives/031858.html
these are the words of a racist, xenophobic.
"The gold chain nestled in chest hair set?"
I pray I live long enough to see these words featured in a U.S. Census table.
And f.y.i. "kachma":
I'm disappointed you couldn't work "misogynist" into your post.
This one's obvious. Iranians, Israelis, Syrians, Armenians, et. al. Theyre "middle east" or "near east" people. "Middle Easterners"??
For some time now, non muslim minorities in the Middle East have been fleeing their native countries. I'm not surprised many of them have wound up in Los Angeles.
system of a down is armenian. they have some songs about growing up armenian in los angeles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_of_a_down
The image that popped in my head reading this post from Sailer is the scene in Magnolia where the Israeli business owners refuse to give William H. Macy's character another loan so he can get his teeth fixed (to better flirt with a gay bartender).
Dave
"Byron's Sirens"
Whether the groups in question are really considered "white" is another issue. Israelis seem to be the one ones whose claim to whiteness is largely unchallenged. I had been under the impression that Armenians used to be regarded as a white ethnic group but over the last few decades have been informally reclassified as nonwhite, especially in California where they're most numerous. And Iranians have never been considered white.
On the other hand, I grew up during the 1970's in a Connecticut city where ethnic identity was a big thing. "What are you?" was the question greeting any new kid in school if his or her name wasn't of known ethnicity. There was a sizeable group of Lebanese Christians in the city, in fact one of them is now the mayor, and they never were considered anything except another white ethnic group. That may not be true anymore, however (I live elsewhere), what with the rise of racial consciousness.
By the way, if I'm not mistaken Paula Abdul considers herself nonwhite.
Peter
Iron Rails & Iron Weights
In the UK, these would mostly be classified as "Asian". Anyone with an epicanthal fold is "Oriental".
Persians are Aryan, but not white?
Are "Indians" Aryan, but not white?
I assume Semites are not Aryan, but some think of themselves as white?
It is all so confusing...
I've always called them "middle eastern"; although I guess Eurasian or Eurasiatic might do. All of them (Turks, Arabs, Kurds, Israelis et al) are genetically mostly or wholly white/Caucasian, whatever the race police might say (race-splitters of both left and right seem to tie themselves in knots deciding where 'whiteness' stops in the middle east! The left so they can increase numbers eligible for protected-minority status, the right so they can keep Europeans as a nice exclusive high-IQ grouping without including those pesky lower-IQ Arabs et al).
A reader writes:
"Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a politically correct synonym. I suspect it's because you're trying to aggregate groups who hate each other (Arabs vs. Israelis, Armenians vs. Turks), so there's no political pressure for a particular PC term to identify the group as a whole."
That makes sense. Even though the West Asian immigrants seem quite similar culturally to average Americans like me, back in the Old Country they hate each other too much to form umbrella organizations here. In contrast, the Nixon Administration could group Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans because, while they didn't particularly like each other, they were too isolated from each other on different islands back home, and in different parts of America, to really hate each other So ambitious activists saw the advantages in political muscle for getting affirmative action handouts of claiming to represent a synthetic umbrella category: Hispanics.
I thought "Asian" in the UK bascially meant Indian Subcontinent.
That's the central meaning but it's wider than that these days.
I got to say, Steve, opening your blog up to comments was the best idea you have had in a long time. You should have done it long ago.
I lived long enough to recall when people from the middle-east would be highly insulted to be considered anything else but white. However, today, to be white is to be not only bland but responsible for all the world's problems and for the repression of the rest the world, i.e. "people of color". Nobody wants to be white anymore. There are no advantages in being considered white.
When George Deukmejian, a Republican Armenian-American, beat Tom Bradley, a black Democrat, in the 1982 and 1986 elections for governor of California, nobody thought of Duke as anything but white.
In general, the old pre-1924 Armenian immigrants are very well assimilated. The younger ones, especially the ones who grew up in Beirut (which was a refuge for Armenians fleeing the Turkish massacres of 1915) during the Lebanese civil war, can be scary. Grant HS in Van Nuys has had long-running Armenian-Mexican gang fights. (That's kind of ironic because you are always hearing about how "children must be taught to hate." Yet, here are two groups who never heard of each other before immigrating, and yet they don't get along.)
I believe Armenians enjoy affirmative action in Pasadena city government jobs because a study showed that they are under-represented in city jobs. Of course, the reason is because they can make lots more money in the private sector, so I haven't heard much about this lately. Mostly, they sound more interested in sticking it to the Turks than in affirmative action.
"Persians are Aryan, but not white?
Are "Indians" Aryan, but not white?
I assume Semites are not Aryan, but some think of themselves as white?
It is all so confusing..."
Confusing indeed. I think the term "white" means Caucasian and is a racial term. The term "Ayran" is properly a linguistic classification — now deprecated in favour of "Indo-European" — and is a way of grouping together a family of languages with a common root source. Anatolians, Persians and at least some Indians and Pakistanis are classified as Indo-European, in virtue of their language (but the whole issue is bound up with caste and a vexed pre-history).
It is thought (almost certainly correctly) that the original Indo-European speakers were white, ie Caucasian and this has created a confusion in everyone's minds thinking that they are the same thing. But many "whites" were not Indo-European speakers, and some Indo-European speakers may be Caucasian but are no longer very light skinned (such as Pakistanis and Persians).
The left and the right are tripping over themselves to sort this confusion out to maximize their political gain.
(I've noted that Kurds are very happy to stress their Indo-European ancestry, to distnguish themselves from Arabs, who they often despise.)
HTH
I agree that Lebanese (Danny Thomas, Ralph Nader, George Mitchell, Casey Kasem) and Armenians (William Saroyan, Jerry Tarkanian, Jack Kevorkian) of pre-1924 stock are regarded and regard themselves as white. Most people, I think, would be startled to hear any of those I just named considered non-white. Newer immigrants might regard themselves differently, however.
Ah, yes, the topic that never fails to give... and give and give. The highest-yield bomb to drop in discussions: Who is white?
(Being of Bosnian descent, it makes interesting reading to see, for example, that my religious affiliation makes it difficult for me to be classified as "white." How enlightening! Perhaps it goes like this: when we take a human subject and heat him up to a certain degree and sprinkle with sulphur, depending on which holy book we use to chant prayers, he becomes white, black, red, yellow -- perhaps even green.)
Steve, you were one of those who thought the DNA-profiling would put an end to this, right? Would you be offended if I called you an "extreme optimist" on that?
Also, I know you hate those who come with the "race is a social construct" theory -- since you treat construct = imaginary -- and you turned out to be right: a visit to this discussion (am I wrong or is this the thread on your blog with the highest comment count already?) easily shows how *easy* it is to define race -- that is, assuming we had eliminated humans, their wills, political affiliations, self-image, etc. etc., about a couple of hundred other sociological variables.
I decided that since I'm nominally of Muslim background, and since I cannot be treated as "white" (since I'm malodorous due to Islam), I should be classified as Green.
Thank you for the clarification, gentlemen.
Levantines
A genteel and amusing post, anonymous. But I'm sure you know that many of your Muslim brethren tend to treat "white" as a synonym for "Christian".
Let us not pretend that the issue of who is what race is the sole hobby horse of a group of European xenophobes.
Didn't Persia change its name to Iran to announce its Aryan background?
So, please…
Back in 1982, Indian and Pakistani businessmen persuaded the Reagan Administration to reclassify them from white to Asians so they could qualify for minority business development loans from the Small Business Administration. So, currently, the official U.S. recognized boundary between whites and Asians is the Khyber Pass between Afghanistan and Pakistan, which must be pretty funny to the millions of Pashtuns who wander back and forth across the border.
Well, Steve, the Pashtuns seem to think of themselves as a very original tribe of Aryans, related to the Pathians — so if they ever come to America in large numbers they will have an identity crisis on their hands, much as Pakistanis and Indians do.
Why would anyone want to be classified as white?
Seriously, being classified as white no longer has any benefit. It is better to be classified as a racial/ethnic minority and receive all the protections/benefits of being a minority.
David Hume:
Who ever said anything about European Xenophobes? I'm only trying to be funny - sorry for not sprinkling my comment with smileys to cue in laughter spots.
Who ever said it is only whites who engage in this kinda slippery classification tapdance?
And who would my "brethren" be? Somalis? Yemenis? Afghanis? Mongolians? Pakistanis? Indonesians? Chinese Hui?
(Besides, accepting that your observation applies to large groups of Muslims, doesn't it only show what I've just said: how weird, phoney, "loaded" all these 19th century classifications are which EVERYBODY indulges in?)
How about just letting DNA-sequencing and SNP correlations -- and the so-called HapMap -- to speak for themselves?
If I'm not mistaken, Steve is only trying to create a practical referent for a group of people which, as a spectrum of ethnies, didn't have a visibility until recently in the US. I don't think he's interested in "who is whiter than whom" discussions. (Naturally, he can speak for himself.) But just look at the thread. The moment someone so much as touches this, people revolve to it like moth to flame -- as if playing with the definition of something basically biological could possibly change anything.
How about doing conservative "identity politics" on just present-oriented practical terms, and leave the "March of the Titans" nonsense to people who don't have the slightest intention of rectifying the global racio-political mess created by the imperialisms of the past millennium?
How about using just "European-descended" and "Middle Eastern" as practical labels, regardless of people's religious or linguistic affiliations?
There is a big price to pay in self-esteem in being classified as part of a group that needs a hand out. I think that is why ethnic chinese have never tried.
Imagine being a high IQ black doctor and have everyone suspicious that you wouldn't have your job if it hadn't been for affirnative action. It must be crippling.
I certainly know feminist academics who are psychically torn apart by the strong suspicion that without affirmative action they would not have gotten anywhere (a justifiable suspicion in a great many cases).
Handouts would be hard to live with for a great many people. (Start up mony for businesses is different, I acknowledge.)
Anonymous, I don't disagree with your concluding suggestion: I think that is how things will in fact proceed.
But issues about origins are not going to go away — there is simply too much vested in them. And it's academically interesting and important (for example how close were the Etruscans and the Greeks? Wouldn't you like to know? I know I would.)
BTW the reply count to this thread is by no means the longest thus far, though it may indeed end up topping out the others.
Re Armenians sticking it to Turks, I've actually heard of people who are of mixed Armenian/Turkish ancestry. Hard to imagine how that could happen short of rape!
Peter
"There is a big price to pay in self-esteem in being classified as part of a group that needs a hand out. I think that is why ethnic chinese have never tried."
This is utter bullshit. I don't see too many blacks calling for an end to affirmative action. I guess idiots like you just like to live in la la land.
That there is a big price to pay in self-esteem for affirmative action does not of course mean that there are not many that are prepared to pay it. I agree.
Speaking anecdotally as a half Lebanese Maronite descended from Ottoman-era immigrant great-grandparents, from what I've seen most Middle Eastern Christians get treated more or less as white ethnics by the larger American society. The Lebanese especially tend to have "generic Mediterranean" looks and blend in pretty easily with Greeks, Italians, and southern Slavs. And a more or less shared religion facilitates intermarriage, so you get interesting crosses like my mixed Lebanese-Mexican cousin marrying a mixed Lebanese-Polish guy-- the common factor being some form of Catholicism practiced by all the grandparents. Also factoring in is the eastern Mediterranean stereotype of Lebanese women as beautiful and good cooks, making them somewhat high prestige marriage partners to many of the other sub-groups.
Living in L.A., I often find that casually dropping a few Arabic phrases and an explanation of my ancestry (necessary because recessive genes from some Frankish crusader left me blue-eyed and pale-skinned) works like a secret handshake with a lot of the other eastern Med/Near East subgroups-- even the normally snooty toward Arabs Persians. An interesting subject, all in all.
David Hume,
Ethnic Chinese in this country had pretty much made the transition from coolies to the merchant/middle class well before the diversity industry got started. People forget sometimes how low on the totem pole Chinese were here in the late 19th Century.
Part of what raised the status of Chinese in the eyes of other Americans was their ability to help themselves via their own charitable and community organizations -- before welfare, Social Security, Medicare, etc., these were life lines for Chinese Americans and other communities.
Dave
We have quite a few Persians in this area (around DC) and I find them to be no darker in skin color than I am (southern Italian). Many of the Persian women, who often avoid the sun like a plague and tend to dye their hair blond, are really quite pale, more like a light olive complexion. The men tend to be darker, primarily because they spend more time outdoors, and like many southern Italians, they tan easily.
Also, doesn't anyone else find the term "Asian" to refer to a racial group, just a little bit ridiculous?
Grant HS in Van Nuys has had long-running Armenian-Mexican gang fights. (That's kind of ironic because you are always hearing about how "children must be taught to hate." Yet, here are two groups who never heard of each other before immigrating, and yet they don't get along.)
It's probably not that they have any innate dislike of one another. What's more likely is that they've become enemies because they're competing to be Top Dog in the school's ethnic hirearchy.
In fact, if a different group ruled the school, it's not impossible to imagine that the Mexicans and Armenians could form a common-enemy alliance.
Peter
Iron Rails & Iron Weights
How do you call West Asian immigrants? In Argentina they are called Turcos. Of course, very few of them are ethnic Turks, in fact many are Greeks and Armenians who rather dislike Turks, but they dont seem to care. I never heard any "gold chain nested in chest hair" to protest.
BTW we have a turca in our family, from a Jewish hamullah in Aleppo and she does not consider herself exotic nor do we. Steve, could anybody be considered exotic in South California Anno Dominis 2007?
To david hume, a bit off topic, regarding the Etruscans and the Greeks...If you mean language, there is not much similarity there, with one exception.
However, Greek probably has vestiges of "Pelasgian" (the Greek term for pre-Greek inhabitants) in place names and words (generally ending in "inthos", "assos", and "ossos.")
The Greeks used the term "Tyrrhenian" (their name for the Etruscans) as a synonym for "Pelasgian", and they reported remnants of "Tyrrhenians" in various areas around the Aegean (including on the island of Lemnos, where a 7th-6th century stela containing inscriptions in a language similar to Etruscan, was found.)
I think that "Tyrrhenian" referred to people spread out around the Aegean and north-central Mediterranean, who preceded the Indo-European expansion (unless one accepts Renfrew's Anatolia hypothesis) and spoke a set of related languages (perhaps connected to Hattic and Northwest Caucasian.)
It is likely that the Neolithic ancestors of the Greeks (and, according to Robert Drews, perhaps the lower-class Greeks of the Mycenaean period) spoke "Tyrrhenian" languages as well.
If you mean ancestry and phenotype, on the other hand, it is impossible to distinguish between modern Greeks and central or southern Italians by appearance (It is unlikely that one could have distinguished ancient Greeks and Etruscans by appearance either; the Greeks and Romans never mention different physical appearances for different southern European and Levantine peoples.)
Both Greeks and South Italians have DNA profiles that are typical of the eastern Mediterranean (with high frequencies of the Y-chromosome haplotypes E3b and J/J2.)
Central Italians from Lazio, Tuscany, and Umbria probably show lower levels of the E3b and J
haplotypes than southern Italians, but still significantly more than northwestern Europeans. Studies do show that the Etruscan nobility (based on skeletal remains from Etruscan tombs) had higher frequencies of these Middle Eastern haplogroups than their putative descendants in central Italy.
The E3b and J/J2 haplotypes are associated with the Neolithic expansion from the Middle East; J2 in particular is associated with the Northern Fertile Crescent. These haplotypes were likely brought to Italy both by earlier Neolithic and early Bronze Age settlers who arrived by sea from Asia Minor and the Aegean (perhaps our "Tyrrhenians") and by the Iron Age Greek and Phoenician settlers.
Patrick — many thanks for that interesting response. You obviously know about just the things that I'd like to know much more about! :)
I've always felt that there are similarities in basic culture (pottery etc) that needs to be explained, but I'm sure people have looked at such things already.
Many thanks again
Patrick, one further thing:
Judging by their descendents in 13th Century Florence (the paintings of Giotto show this most clearly) the Etruscans had a very distinctive nose — very straight with no bridge (what is sometimes called, slightly erroneously, a Roman Nose). Judging by their statues and representations on pots this very distinctive nose type was also had by many Greeks in at least the Classical period.
You can still see that nose in modern Italy, in Tuscany, but it is only present about 5-10% of the time. By contrast you never see that nose in modern Athens.
Monica Bellucci has that nose — and it is a wonderful thing to behold. :)
As for the physical appearance of people in ancient art, I would caution that that is often stylized and is easy to misinterpret.
The more realistic sculptures (e.g. that of Seianti Hanunia Tlesnasa) show physical appearances that are typical of people from Mediterranean countries (they would fit well in Italy, Greece, Lebanon and so forth.)
By the way, Etruscan art was influenced by the Greeks throughout its history; the primary motivation for the first Greek settlements in south Italy was to pursue trade in metals from the Etruscan area of central Italy, and the Etruscans continued to maintain contact with the Greek colonies in "Megale Hellas" (south Italy) until their ultimate absorption by the Romans.
In Russia, they'd all be "Black" (dark hair, dark eyes, beard stubble, somewhat darker skin).
Plenty of good definitions of "white-ness" here. I'll offer one of my own:
Ethnic group X is white if white women consider its men to be potential spouses just as much as they consider other white men to be potential spouses, *and* white men consider them to be potential spouses just as much as they consider other white women as potential spouses.
WHAT’S WRONG WITH MODERN RACIAL CLASSIFICATIONS?
AFRICAN/AFRICAN AMERICAN - Africa is a landmass, a continent, that is equally home to people other than Blacks. Africa is made up of 54 countries and not all of them have a majority Black population. Many of these countries have large White or Mixed (Mulatto) populations, especially in northern, southern, and certain coastal areas of Africa. Blacks do indeed live all over Africa, and while they are a majority in many countries, they are minorities in other countries. Since the earliest times after Babel, Africa was settled predominantly by the descendants of Ham (Black people), but Mediterranean Whites (Semites), and Nordic Whites (Japhethites) also settled the coastal areas of northern and northeastern Africa. Through the ages more and more Whites and Mulattos have entered Africa either by invasion, colonization, or simply moved there and have carved out lives there up until this day. Thus, not only are many Africans non-Black, but not all Blacks on Earth originated in or are descended from Africa or African peoples, i.e. Black Aboriginal Australians, certain Pacific Islanders that are clearly Black, Black Dravidians of India, and the ancient Aboriginal Blacks of the Americas prior to the slave trade. (Note: I am not an Afrocentrist and all the facts point to Eurasia as the cradle of civilization, not Africa.) All of these FACTS make using Africa a synonymous patronymic for "Black" very unreliable and inconsistent to say the least. Therefore, "Africa" cannot logically be used synonymously and interchangeably with "Black" because it totally disregards White and Mulatto Africans that have just as much a right to claim Africa as their home. I worked with an Egyptian in the past named Sam G. and he was White. We were talking about this very subject one day. He was born in Egypt and moved here when he was 13 or 14 and still has the accent. The last time I checked the map, Egypt is an African country. Sam is more African than the Blackest American ever will be. White African actress Charlize Theron from South Africa, is likewise more African than the Blackest American. In short, an African is anybody born on the African continent regardless of race. An African American is an American of African heritage regardless of race. The Black, White, and Mixed Africans are each no more or no less African than the other. All are equally African! "Africa" is believed to derive from an ancient tribe called the Afri. It is believed by some the Roman general Scipio Africanus got his name from that tribe. Some speculate it was the other way around and he gave Africa it’s name. Who knows for sure. The bottom line is, that Africans are not a single race of people, but a mixture of different nationalities of White, Black, and varying degrees of Mulatto peoples.
ASIAN/ORIENTAL/MONGOLOID - Asia is the larger part of the landmass of Eurasia. Asia has 51 countries, not all having people possessing features such as “slanted,” almond eyes, and general Mongoloid features. An Asian is anybody born in Asia regardless of race. Indians, Pakistanis, Kazakhs, Afghans, Uzbeks, Mongolians, etc., etc., etc., are all Asians, many of whom are White. The larger part of Russia (mainly White people) are also Asian. Many Asians are White such as White Arabs, White Russians, and White peoples like Turks, Uzbeks, and Afghans, etc., etc., etc. Some are Black like Black Arabs, particularily in southern Arabia and Black Indians (Dravidians), and other Blacks indigenous to parts of Asia. Most are a healthy stable Mulatto like the Mongoloid (Mongolian-like) peoples, and certain Mixed Arabs. All are Asian, but one is no more or no less Asian than the other. The same scenario that applied to Africa also applies to Asia! It's believed that "Asia" derives from the ancient "Assyria." The term "oriental" just means "eastern," as "occidental" means "western." They're not races or physical looks and appearances and Oriental doesn‘t mean “almond eyes.” Oriental is anybody from east of the Ural Mountains and east of Greece. Middle or Near Easterners as well as Far Easterners are all Orientals. Indians and Siberians are all likewise Asians. The terms “oriental” and “occidental” probably originated with the scattering of peoples away from Babel and Noah’s Ark, which landed in the Ararat Mountains of the Caucasus. That area in conjunction with the Ural Mountain range symbolically divides Asia from Europe although this division is only imaginary since anyone can look at an atlas and clearly see that Asia and Europe are one large landmass or continent.
As for the Mongoloids, many of them are light-skinned enough to be White or dark enough to be Black in spite of their almond eyes. I’ve known an American of Japanese ancestry who had a skin complexion no different than a typical White American. He considered himself White, believe it or not. Who am I to argue with that logic. He is White as far as I’m concerned. Almond eyes does not cease to make one White or Black. Incidentally, there are certain Black tribes in Africa that have almond eyes! On the flip side of that coin, I’ve seen photos of indigenous Blacks in parts of Korea. So, clearly, Asian cannot be a race of people. As for the term “Mongoloid.“ it simply means Mongolian or Mongol-like in appearance. It was once considered a separate race but the facts are, it's an ancient Mulatto group formed by the mixing and mingling of ancient Blacks (mainly Sinites), Mulattos (Hittites) and Whites (Tocharians and Magyars) across Asia to differing degrees. Ancient Chinese writings tell us that China’s first dynasties were Black. Asian Eurasia was mainly populated by both the Hamites (Blacks) Semites (Mediterranean Whites in the Middle East mainly), and Japhethites (Nordic Whites) The bottom line is that Asians are either White, Black, or varying degrees of Mulattos, but is not a race in and of itself.
INDIAN - Indians, simply put, are from India. India is a country just like China, Indonesia, Bhutan, Kenya, or Canada. Indians, like most other Asians (or Eurasians) are themselves an ancient Mulatto people for the most part. They are predominantly a mix between the ancient Black Dravidians (possibly Cushites) and the White Aryans (Medes) who invaded in 1500 BC. However, Indians are clearly not a race of people. I’ve seen Indians as Black as any Black African or as White as any European.
MIDDLE EASTERN/ARAB - A Middle Easterner is one born in the Middle East regardless of race. The Middle East is a region of Asia and Asia is the larger part of Eurasia. Middle Easterners are mainly Mediterranean Whites. However, nearly as many Blacks (Hamites) settled the Middle East in Ancient times as did Mediterranean Whites (Semites). In certain areas, particularily in the Arabian peninsula and parts of Canaan this was true. There’s even a degree of Nordic White (Japhetic) stock present in the Middle East’s population. The Ancient Medes were Nordic White and there were early Greek outposts as well and they too were Nordic White for the most part. When you see blonde haired, blue-green-gray eyed people in the Middle East, those are throwbacks to the Nordic Whites. In spite of all this mixing, there are in fact Black Middle Easterners as well. If the Middle Easterners are a race then Southerners here in America should also be a race.
The word "Arab" derives from the Semitic root "ereb" which means "mixed multitudes." This is helpful in describing the Arabic peoples as a whole. They themselves even know they’re mixed and not a single race! “Arab” is a more broad meaning than Middle Easterner because it encompasses northern Africa as well. Thus, when we use the term "Arab" we're actually and truthfully saying a "mixed or mulatto person." Arabs, just like Middle Easterners are mainly a mix between the various Semitic (Mediterranean) tribes, but due to considerable Hamitic (Black) stock also inhabiting ancient Arabia, there was substantial mixing of them as well. Today, a great many Arabs are Mediterranean White. But many Arabs are also Black! A few are even Nordic White (Japhetic), but most are Mixed (Mulatto). The Mediterranean White (Semitic) seems to be the dominant phenotype in much of the Arabian countries though. Today Arabic is also the language that Arabs speak. The Arabic language is mixed just like the people who speak it, but clearly is predominantly Semitic. “Arab” cannot be used as a racial term in light of these facts. Actors/spokesmen, etc., Tony Shalhoub, F. Murray Abraham, David Hasselhoff, Casey Kasem, Ralph Nader, Shakira, Danny Thomas, and even Saddam Hussein are all Arab or part Arab and yet all are clearly White! Most Sudanese are Black Arabs. Many North Africans are also Black Arabs in various countries. Many if not most northern Africans are clearly White though. Early on, northern Africa was home to Blacks predominantly except for the Mediterranean coast. They descend from early Whites such as the Greeks, Aeolians, Romans, Mulatto or predominantly White Phoenicians (who, incidentally, were originally Black before centuries of mixing), and the later Germanic Vandals, plus the even later Islamic hordes of Moors who were Black, White, and Mulattos themselves. Today’s northern Africans are a conglomerate of all these peoples and are mainly White, though large Black and Mulatto populations exist there as well. Clearly though, Middle Easterners and Arabs are not races of people in light of these facts.
EUROPEAN - Europe is a peninsula of the larger Eurasian continent. Europe and Asia aren't even separate continents as is taught. Europe consists of 45 countries, all of which are clearly made up of White people. European Eurasia was peopled by mainly the Japhethites (Indo-Europeans/Nordic Whites). Eurasia has 96 countries by adding Europe’s and Asia’s countries together. There are Blacks living in Europe, but not enough to declare any country Black. Even though Europe is 99.9 percent White in all it's 45 countries, it's still not a race of people. There are Whites outside Europe that have been so for thousands of years like Russia (Muskovites), and ancient Persia (Medes and Elamites), and the White Indians (Aryans or Medes), Armenians, and as we mentioned earlier, many Middle Easterners and Arabs, and Afghans, Turks, Kazakhs, and many Pakistanis, etc. The majority of the Japhethites migrated to Europe and North-Central Asia, but not all did. A European is anybody born in Europe regardless of race! Again, a more precise term is Eurasian in spite of the Western world always wanting to divide the two for no logical reason other than tradition, religion, and politics.
CAUCASIAN - Caucasian or Caucasoid is always used as a synonym for White people. Actually "Caucasian" refers exclusively to the peoples of the Caucasus area around Georgia, between the Caspian and Black Seas. They speak ancient languages called Caucasian today spoken by the Circassians and Georgians. These Caucasians Proper are White people, but to take a name already in use and extend it to encompass all people that share their phenotype makes it rather unreliable and out of place as a demonstrative for other peoples. This would be like calling all White people in the world Britons because Britons are White. That’s obsurd to say the least. An example of this is calling Aboriginal Americans, Indians when the name “Indian” is already rightfully taken by the people of India. Columbus' mistake but it still doesn't make it suitable. If "Negroid" is used for "Black," then "Blancoid" should be used for "White." "Negroid" comes from the Spanish word "Negro" for the color "black." "Blanco" comes from the Spanish word for the color "white." However, splitting hairs aside, "White" is defining enough. The Census bureau defines Caucasian as "originating or descending from any country in Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East." That's foolish because whereas Europe is 99.9 percent White in all it‘s nations, there are Blacks living there. North Africa does indeed have a White majority, but is also home to very large numbers of Blacks and Mulattos. Should Black North Africans be called White just because they're from North Africa? The Middle East is also chock full of Whites, but plenty of Mulattos and Blacks live there as well. Should they too be considered White simply because they're from the Middle East? The point is, your race is determined by what you physically look like, not necessarily where you were born or live exclusively. This brings to mind a Black Egyptian named Mostafa Hefny who moved to the USA and was forced to check White in spite of the clear fact he was Black. This was done simply because he was from Egypt which is in North Africa. I saw a photo of him and let me tell you, he could play Samuel L. Jackson’s brother! He looks no different than the average Black American. He even had a afro! Hefny is a clear example of a Black Arab or a Black North African! He sued the US government and rightly so! That would be identical to considering Charlize Theron, the White South African actress as Black simply because she comes from south of the Sahara Desert. (Note: According to the US Census Bureau, Black or African is defined as one having roots or from any country south of the Sahara Desert.) What’s the Sahara Desert got to do with it anyhow? Africa is Africa, north, south, east, west, underneath, whatever. It’s all Africa. No one region of Africa is more African than another region. Labeling Theron as Black because she’s from south of the Sahara, is identical as labeling Hefny White because he’s from north of the Sahara. How stupid can the human race get?! Again, Caucasian is not a fitting term, White being the simpler, more logical term as it does not conflict or overlap with anything else.
HISPANIC/LATINO - Whereas only Spaniards and people of the Spanish culture, language, and ethnicity are Hispanic; Spaniards, Portuguese, Andorrans, Frenchmen, Italians, Romanians and related peoples of those languages, cultures, and ethnicities would all be Latinos. Actually, if anybody should be considered Latino above all others it's Italians, because it was their ancestors, the Romans, that initiated and spread the Latin language and cultures. However, I said all that to say this. Although there are Black people living in the countries of Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Andorra, and Romania, they are all nations of White people. The fact they are Latino does not conflict with the fact they are White. White is a race whereas Latino/Hispano(ic) are cultures, languages, and ethnicities that are interracial, not a single race. Too many American idiots cannot seem to come to grips with the fact that Hispanic/Latino is not a race nor is it synonymous with the color brown. The Hispanics/Latinos that people usually think of as being brown or "looking Hispanic/Latino" are actually Mixed (Mulatto) people. But, just because the majority of Hispanics/Latinos we usually see are Mulattoes, does not at all mean there are not White as well as Black Hispanics/Latinos. There are many examples of White Hispanics/Latinos such as Gloria Estefan, Cameron Diaz, The Sheen/Estevez family, Ricky Martin, Ricardo Montalban, Andy Garcia, Jerry Garcia, Shakira, Jose and Miguel Ferrer, Desi Arnaz and son, Antonio Banderas, Esteban Bellan, Armando Marsans, Rafael Almeida, Adolfo Luque, Salma Hayak, Nelly Furtado, and the list goes on and on and on; and Black Hispanics/Latinos such as Roberto Clemente, Sammy Sosa, Orestes Minoso, Martin Dihigo, Silvio Garcia, "El Duque" Hernandez, Tony Oliva, and the list goes on and on and on. The Haitians though they speak a French dialect which is still derived from Latin are technically Latino although they are predominantly Black or Mulatto. The Dominicans whom they share Hispaniola with are similar to the Haitians but they speak a Spanish dialect and have much more White admixture than the Haitians do, but there are still plenty of Black Dominicans just as Black as their Haitian neighbors. Technically the Cajuns of Louisiana and the French speaking Quebec Canadians are also Latino but most Cajuns and Quebecians are White. Cuba's Latinos are predominantly White and Mulatto, whereas Puerto Rico’s Latinos are predominantly Mulatto. Uraguayans, Argentinians, and Brazilians all have large White populations and Brazil also has a large Black population as well. Mexico has largely Aboriginal descent people (Mayan, Aztec, Olmec, Toltec) which are incidentally themselves an ancient Mulatto of Black and White. Compared to Anglo American Mulattos, Latin America has a much higher percentage of Mixed people, whether they be White-Black Mulattos, White-Mulatto Mulattos, or Black-Mulatto Mulattos. Here in the Americas there are 2 predominating groups, the Latin Americans and the Anglo Americans. In Anglo America the official language is English and the cultures and ethnicities reflect this fact. Anglos can be White, Black or Mulatto because we all speak English though not all are necessarily of British ancestry. The same exact scenario exists in Latin America. In Latin America Spanish, Portuguese, and French are the official languages and their cultures and ethnicities reflect this fact. Latin Americans just like Anglo Americans can be White, Black, or Mulatto. This all goes to prove there's absolutely no such thing as a "Hispanic/Latino look." Sure, people can conjure up in their minds the so-called stereotypical Hispanic/Latino "look" and within that confined limited parameter pick out those particular Hispanics/Latinos in a crowd for the most part. But, how many White or Black Hispanics/Latinos do those same people pass every day and take no notice or pay no attention to because they don't fit the narrow, limited, brainwashed stereotype? This could cause problems in a criminal investigation where the general public is counted on to find a Hispanic/Latino criminal couldn't it?
Let’s look into the history of Hispanics/Latinos. The Romans who conquered the Iberian peninsula divided it into 2 portions. The eastern larger portion they called Hispania (Spain), and the smaller western portion they called Lusitania (Portugal). Hispanic or Hispano comes from Hispania as well as Hispaniola, and Espana (Spain). Portuguese people are not Hispanic regardless of what some declare. They would technically be Lusitanic, though this term is hardly, if at all, used or even known to people. The Portuguese are Latino though. Latino is a much more broad and encompassing term than Hispanic as was stated before. However, in spite of being Latino, the Spanish, Portuguese, and French explorers and conquerers were White. They were described by the Aboriginal Americans as “palefaced ones,” and “having eyes like chalk, sandy colored hair and beards and light eyes,” while some possessed “dark eyes, hair, and beards.” In contrast to the British who mainly came to the Americas to settle with families, the Spanish, Portuguese, and French came with mainly military to conquer for their mother countries and thus brought few women with them. The men, with their wives back home did what came natural and mated in with the Aboriginal Mulatto people and with the Black slaves they brought over from western African countries. This gave rise in Latin America to large populations of Mulatto/Mestizo people. But they still maintained a White elite aristocracy to rule the colonies. The same scenario occurred in the British colonies but to a much lesser degree. Today, there still remains large populations of Latin Americans that are White. The Black slaves took Spanish, Portuguese, or French sir names and learned Spanish, Portuguese, and French just like Black slaves in the British colonies took British sir names and learned English. This has led a majority of Hispanics/Latinos to being Mulattos to varying noticeable degrees. But this by no means eliminated or suggests there are not overwhelming numbers of White Hispanics/Latinos and Black Hispanics/Latinos to go around.
Hispanic or Hispano and Latino is the equivilent of Anglo. We Americans live in an Anglo society. We speak English, settled mainly by the British, and have various British cultures and ethnicities. Other cultures are present but we all speak English--Black, White, and Mulatto alike, thus making us all Anglo Americans. But, Anglo is still not a race! The same applies to Hispanic/Latino. Of all the cultures that have made up Hispanics/Latinos, they still predominantly speak Spanish, Portuguese, or French--Black, White, Mulatto alike, thus making them all Hispanics and/or Latinos, but it's still not a race of people any more than Anglo is! People sometimes forget that Latin America has been just as much of a melting pot for the world as has Anglo America. Anglo Americans descend from hundreds of world nations but since they speak English today, they’re Anglos. Likewise, Latin Americans descend from hundreds of world nations and since they speak Spanish, Portuguese, or French today, they’re all Latinos. So, just because someone comes from a Latin American country and speak Spanish, Portuguese, or French, does not mean they are of Spanish, Portuguese, or French ancestry.
As for the term “Latino,” it comes from the word “Latin.” The Latins were a Japhetic (Nordic) tribe that eventually conquered all of Italy and founded the Roman Empire. The Romans were predominantly White as were the people they conquered until they started encroaching into northern Africa and the Mulatto populations of Arabia. The Latins (Romans) who conquered Spain, Portugal, France, Romania, and Italy were White. The ancient peoples of Spain, Portugal, France, Romania, and Italy that the Romans subjugated were mostly White. Thus the Latin culture, language, and ethnicities were spread around the Roman world. Today the Latin (Romanic) countries of Europe are Italy, Romania, Spain, Portugal, Andorra, and France as was stated earlier. It must be noted that it was the French colonists that coined the term Latin America to distinguish the French colonies from Anglo America--the British colonies.
Lastly, it’s a myth that southern Europeans are a great contrast to northern Europeans in skin complexion. The claims of the fair skin northerners vs. the dark skin southerners is greatly exaggerated to say the least. The average Sicilian’s natural complexion is not that much different from the average Swede’s skin complexion. Therefore, to claim that southern Europeans are non-White is clearly and totally unwarranted.
NATIVE AMERICAN/INDIAN - A Native American is anybody born in America or anywhere in the Americas (North or South America). I'm a Native American. For Indian see the section on INDIA. Columbus thought he'd reached the Indies when in fact he'd reached the Americas, but the name stuck. I reckon if Columbus thought he'd landed in Japan we'd be playing Cowboys and Japanese today! A more suitable and non-overlapping term for these people as a whole would be Aboriginal Americans. They, themselves descended from ancient Blacks, Whites, and Mulattos from ancient Africa, Eurasia, and Australia/Oceania. The proof of this comes from the first pioneers into the Americas. Black “Indian” tribes were described as living in certain areas of the American South. White “Indian” tribes were described living in northern Georgia and out West. Ancient drawings, and stone carvings, and statues from South America and southern North America depict Black people especially in the Olmec areas. If Blacks were in Africa first, why don’t we call them Native Africans to the disregard of other Africans? So, we should not call the ancient Aboriginal Americans Native Americans to the disregard of other Americans. So here again we have an ancient Mulatto people that does not constitute a single race. So, neither Native American nor American “Indian” are races! “Aboriginal American,” though not a race, is a much more satisfactory term.
ESKIMO/ALEUTIAN/ALASKAN NATIVE - Eskimos and Aleutians are part of the Aboriginal American peoples and are thus not races. An Alaskan Native is anybody born in the state of Alaska regardless of race! See previous section on NATIVE AMERICAN/INDIAN.
PACIFIC ISLANDER - A Pacific Islander is anybody born on a Pacific Island regardless of race. It's not a race in and of itself though! There are Pacific Islands home to Black peoples, Mulatto peoples, and White peoples, although more recently no doubt. The ancient Aboriginal peoples of these islands are clearly predominantly Black with large amounts of White present in their genetics as well, thus a Mulatto people. This however renders the usage of Pacific Islander as a racial term right up there with considering African and Asian as races. It’s totally obsurd!
CONCLUSION - If we're going to use European, African, and Asian as racial terms, then we must also use North American and South American as racial terms, too. Then if enough people settle Antarctica, we'll have to use Antarctican as a race! If we are going to Use Indian, and Hispanic as a race, then we need to start splitting all countries on Earth into separate races too. If we're going to treat Latino as a race, then we must treat Celtic, Teutonic, Slavic, Hellenic, etc., etc., etc., as races! If we're going to consider Pacific Islanders a race then we must consider Key Westers, and Nantucketans as races too! My my my what a big job application that would create! You see the utter foolishness in all of these overlapping, inconsistent, contradictory, and rediculous attempts by the so-called educated academicians to "properly" label people? Anybody with a quarter of a brain can see through this totality of ignorance! The question is a simple one. What do you physically, predominantly look like in a line up? If you look Black, guess what? YOU'RE BLACK! If you look White, guess what? YOU'RE WHITE! If you look like neither to a noticeable degree and to varying features of the inbetween status, guess what? YOU'RE MIXED (MULATTO, MULTIRACIAL) - PERIOD! Your race is not your ethnicity, nationality, or culture. Race is outside of the more fluid and changing ethnicities and cultures. Being White or Black is not your culture or ethnicity or habits. It’s what you physically and biologically are regardless of your culture, ethnicity, habits, opinions, or desires. Take White people for instance. People make the mistake of thinking White equals Western (as in the Western world or Western ideologies) or that it equals standard US American culture. Many equate being White with being Christian or Protestant and declare emphatically that Muslims and Easterners cannot be White because they’re not Western. That’s utter foolishness. A great many Muslims are White and just because they speak Arabic, Israeli, or some other non Indo-European language, has no bearing on whether or not they are White. All European nations vary widely in cultures and ethnicities, but yet all European nations are clearly and obviously made up of 99.9 percent White peoples. Whiteness is not something you feel, choose, or decide. It’s just what you are.
The bottom of bottom lines is this simple, but, truthful fact, and that there are but 3 main races of mankind (4 if you consider Mulatto a race): Semitic (Mediterannean White), Japhetic (Nordic White), Hamitic (Black), and Mulatto (Mixed), period! Alpines, Dinarics, Armenoids, etc., etc., etc., can be explained by the mixing to varying degrees between the Mediterannean Whites and Nordic Whites. The controversy over these elementary terms and discussions will never be solved unless people start using common sense, logic, and quit letting political correctness, personal biases, and personal or political axes to grind interfere with these matters. However, when it’s all said and done, there’s really only one race--THE HUMAN RACE!
OK,,,let me Re-educate everyone...
Western Asians are not Asian at all..
Asian people, have 2 types... Pacific Islaner Native indian Asian..as In Phillipenes, Indonesia, Burma, and Malaysia.... big eyes.. long noses..flat faces.. yellow to dark brown skin.. and East Asian..or Mainstream Asian..China White skin..slanted eyes.. long noses.. skinny.. As in Bruce Lee,..chinese.. Korean..japanese...
Middle easterns are Not Asian at All...
The Middle east..to you dumbfucks..
is.. the Middle east..where Jesus Descended from Isreal..as in The middle east..jews.. Arabians..aremanians..
they are middle eastern..
now.. are they caucasians?...
no.
Middle Eastern..are a mixture.. of..
1- African.. 2- native Indian.. 3- easternish.
which is the race..found..in areas..such as iran.. arabia... and 4- Indian..
now.. Middle easterns.. actually dont even look ASIAN AT ALL...there skin is not pale ...their eyes are not slanted.. and they resemble..more
of native americans.. Indians.. latinos..
and South Americans..mixed with Spanish..italian..
so... Middle easterns..are not asia at all..
now.. if you look at russians..spanish.. italians..
they have caucus features..yet.. very much so filled with ASIAN FEATURES>>many Europeans from Mediterranea regions.. including italy and spain..
have ASIAN FEATURes...very Small slanted eyes...
long noses.. flat faces...skinny.. pale skin..
looking Chinese, korean, or japanese..
now.. koreans..and North Chinese...
have mixing with Mongolia..and Russians..
seeing how CHina runs into Russia..
a large part of it..
and that thousands of Chinese and korean slive in Russia... which explains why Many Caucasians..
even movie stars..look asian with very Small EYES>.. and pale skin..
so.. the theory is..
Russians..mixed with Mongolians..or Chinese..
mixing wiht koreans or Japanese...
explaining the East asians being extremely tall well over 6 feet with pale skin..with Asian features..
and Spanish italians.. and mediterraneans coming from Russia... having asian features..small slanted eyes..pale skin...
so.. Middle easterners are NOT ASIAN..
are they caucasian?
caucasian means.. the Anglo Race..coming from regions near the Caucus mountains such
as Germany, England.and Sweden...
anthing lower than that is Not caucasian..
the middle east is the middle easy..
african.. is african..and african middle east..
is where JESUS.. according to the scientist's findings..where he came from..
jerusalem,israel..and arabia...
those midd east countires.. is where most of the Bible takes place...
so.. Middle easterns..are more like
" middle eastern Indian. native African Mediteranneans"
pashtuns are asian. Not white. We have greek ancestry, but we're still asian.
Hope this helps.
I find it quite interesting as to how ignorant most people really are when it comes to the peoples of the Iberian peninsula. I am half Swede/half Spaniard, with my mother's family being from Galicia; the original home of the Celtic peoples, and one of the few places largley unaffected by the Moorish invasions. Her side of the family actually has more blondes than that of my father, who is from Kiruna, Sweden. One also must take into account the Gothic invasions of Spain and Italy. Spaniard and Swede are connected via these Gothic invasions; the Goths hailing from Götland off the shore of Sweden.
When discussing the "Bradley effect" that supposedly doomed Obama, George Deukmejian (an Armenian) was always referred to as (Mayor Tom)"Bradley's white opponent."
If Armenians and Lebanese Christians are considered non-white, what next? Are Sicilians and Greeks not white either?
If so, are we going back to the racial categories of a century ago, or are we getting rid of these BS categories entirely?
'Whiteness' is a vague term. Like many classification schemes , it naturally lacks scientific merit. But of interest is the fact that most of the traits that are usually perceived as being part of 'whiteness' (blondism, facial structure, ie), have their origins in the northern parts of the Middle East . In an area bound by E. Turkey and E. Iran (or, the Iranian Plateau), and the Lowest Caucaus nations. Caucasoids, does refer to , generally (and relative to a global scale), to 'whiter' looking people, but can more accurately (and less arbitrarily) be defined as descendents of the Proto Turko-Iranian population, whom spread farming into the Middle East, N. Africa, and Europe. Multiple lines of evidence support this.
People see what they want to see. Greeks, Sicilians and Armenians see people like themselves in Turks, Arabs and Sephardic Jews and vice versa. While Brits, Irish and Germans when looking at the same people will determine they are not like themselves and thus "exotic". I believe the Mediterranean type is the most pronounced,generally observalbe distintion in the "Caucasoid" race. It is comparable to the South East Asian - North Asian dinstiction. For example how Laotions and Cambodians are dinstiguishable from Koreans and Japanese.
Post a Comment