*TW* To think the terms “Caucasian” and “white” race are problematic?

[LetsCombatRacism]

Hi all,

So I’m not hoping for this to be antagonistic, but this is something that does affect me.

I’m by the way considered “Caucasian” and I’m fair skinned. However I’m neither European nor “white” according to what the terms refer to.

After I traced my DNA and found that a chunk of it came from the Caucasus region, I started looking into the origins of the word Caucasian..

I passed through the idea that the “origin” of beauty is from there. And that Noah’s arc descended there.. and that every other form of beauty is somewhat considered steering away from the perfect creation of god.

Even more so, that this very concept has its rooted in encouraging slavery.. in that apparently Noah’s Son had been cursed by his father to beat offspring that are “dark and primitive” and... that the northern Africans contributed greatly towards history because they have been blessed with beinf mixed with the whiter race and so watered down the curse.

Now... I’m not reading this from a controversial source.

I’m quite disgusted and appalled that knowing this is the origin of the words and they’re still being used today.

I think a real attempt at tackling racism should start from those terminologies.

Im quite shaken by what I’ve read. It’s not because I’m naive. I didn’t grow up learning European history because I’m not European by heritage.

But I AM, by DNA partly from the Caucasus.. and I am of “semetic” descent, so those theories don’t only not make any sense to me... but they absolutely make me angry..

I feel like I need to say something.. I know we all know it’s irrational to connect the theory to the terms used today but the words we use do define our culture abs for something to have originated in something this DISGUSTING should be uprooted.

I am a woman of Abrahamic faith, and I totally respect the story of Noah but not the racial adaptations that came of it.. in my narrative there was no reference to skin tone in that story and the purpose of it’s narration was to remind everyone that they’re all servants of GOD and so such narrative indicates to me that European scholars at the time had totally used this religious story as a tool to nurture the ideology of superiority of the blond hair blue eyes and that everything steering away from that is merely contaminated.

In fact, there is NO box for me to tick anywhere for my cultural heritage..

Why?! Because people of my ethnicity don’t have their own category.

Why?! Jesus, Abraham and Noah had my regional heritage.

Why? Because I am meant to tick white Caucasian?! But I’m not, I don’t adopt the terminology. I don’t have things in common with the European culture.

My culture wnd that if my entire region descended from Speakees of semetic languages, and traditions and cultures.. we had total different historic journey...

But I need to accept that Jesus was blond and blue eyes and so he is considered “Caucasian” and so am I?! Because otherwise the average European won’t be able to relate?

Why? Is it because it would be hard to comprehend that Aramaic Jesus might be somewhat contaminated from the “perfect creation of god” which is meant to be white and blue eyes?

Was that historically threatening to the narrative that white hair blue eyes is superior in the eyes of god?!

This terminologies are all deeply routed in total hijack of faith figures and imposing racism into it.

And so this is why as a woman of faith I’m appalled.. it was a total historic hijack of crusade Europe which totally disrespected the Christian faith and decided to utelise it for horror.

And then... for those who don’t believe in faith, I wonder how the use of those terminologies and the way people were categorised this way... is justifiable rationally ??

So am I justified in wanting to start a petition to completely obliterate the use of these terminologies and classifications which have any reference to skin tone or “origin of perfect human race”?!!

Instead, say “European heritage”, “”African heritage”, “Middle Eastern heritage”... etc

What a weird post. Stop fretting over the classification of mythical people, just tick other when required. I do, even though I am “white” as the only racial classification I recognise is “human”.

This is the Jesus I grew up with

Take a walk OP, you've been in the house too long.

Even the Americans think Jesus looks like Jonathan Roumie, not some blonde guy.

There were blonde Jesuses about during the late 19th and early 20th century quite a bit. Also Robert Powell had blue eyes. But this obviously has nothing to do with the crusades, who did not have widespread depictions of blonde Jesus!

People all over the world depict Jesus as looking like them anyway.

why drag the bible in ? it's a series of stories that were written hundreds of years apart by randoms, noone can trace their hertigage back that far anyway.
i only found out i was related to king canute through a very titled and well documented line, but even with all my professional knowlege on the subject can't link to the bible.

Lumping everyone from Europe into the same group is equally problematic. Scientists already do use 'white European' as a grouping in some circumstances, but at the end of the day the history of humanity is such a mixing of genetics that putting people into boxes is never going to be perfect. The 'best' solution, in my eyes, is to group data based on what you actually want to collect it for. If that's diversity monitoring then grouping by skin colour first and geography second makes sense. I agree that in those situations it is important to also try and include historically oppressed religious groups, which I do see far less often on these forms.

Did you mean "Semitic"? "Semetic" isn't a word.

Why not just say sorry for the typos? Why do you have to explain that you're breastfeeding? because I never believe it when people use that, it's like they are just trying to fit in with a parenting forum...

European is not a skin colour. Lots of Europeans are not white.

Exactly! Why should the skin tone determine who someone is classified?!

I think geography makes better sense then?!

I don’t have a problem with being called white. I do have a problem with that category being renamed European Heritage. Lots of Europeans aren’t white and that label would exclude them.

@LetsCombatRacism

European is not a skin colour. Lots of Europeans are not white.

Exactly! Why should the skin tone determine who someone is classified?!

I think geography makes better sense then?!

Because nationality has fuck all to do with skin colour.

A person who is British could be white, black, Asian or another ethnicity.

Do you really not get that OP?

Did you literally write an essay (tl:dr btw) on the problems of being white? Who is it supposed to trigger?

Why should the skin tone determine who someone is classified?!
Because there are differences between people of different colours. For example we’ve recently discovered that BAME people suffer more with Covid. Sickle cell disease is more common in black people. Coeliac disease is more common in white people. Etc.

What the feck is in your holy water??!

Even for MN I have no idea whats going on here. Using Noah and the bible as an example, when everyone in the bible was from the Middle East/Africa/Asia? What a weird analogy.

Identity politics is going so far down the rabbit hole though, even the most open minded of people are going to find themselves in a vortex of offence is not careful.

I'm living in the Caucasus and wouldn't really say that the local complexion ("colour") is white - more like Mediterranean, think Italian/Spanish. The fair-skinned/blue-eyed people seem to have heritage that links back to Russian origins.

Caucasian is an outdated phrase, haven't heard it used in years. You certainly won't find it on any forms here in the UK. Where do you live OP?

I’m also totally confused. Noah’s ark and all.

The category ‘white’ is massive and obviously full of sub-categories. Just like ‘black’ or ‘Asian’. Even the sub categories have subcategories.

That’s why forms in the UK tend to offer some differentiation, at least between ‘white - British’, ‘white - Irish’ and ‘white - other’. It’s not that these are the correct categorisations. It’s just that they’re somehow useful data for the people making the form. If I moved to, say, Kenya, I’m pretty sure that ‘white - European’ might be the level of detail anyone cared about. The distinction between British and Irish just wouldn’t matter. The form makers might care about differentiation between ethnic groups UK forms lump together as ‘black - African’ though. Because different things matter in different places.

Genetically I’m 100% Celtic (Irish and Scottish). I’m not going to sit up worrying that a choice between white -British and white - Irish doesn’t easily reflect my genetic makeup. It’s not that important. It’s probably just an equalities monitoring form.

Maybe stop worrying about whether you are descended from Noah.

I find the Bible's take on women and homosexuality disgusting. In fact most of it is problematic. The fact that people who follow the old testament teachings today believe that they are somehow better, superior or indeed the 'perfect' ones is hugely problematic. More so than people classing themselves as 'white'.
The reason these firms exist is to racially profile in a way, although usually positively discriminating now. 'European' isn't a race of people who have collectively been penalised throughout history. A white English 'European's' history would be vastly different from a Polish 'European's' history and again from an Asian English 'European's' experiences.
Your post is, in the main, nonsense abs difficult to understand what point you're actually trying to make. The terms white and black have been decided, for the moment, to be the acceptable, positive terms to use to describe people's race or ethnicity. You can't use the story of Noah to stop people saying they are white.

OP there are a lot of different points that need to be unpicked in your post.

It's fine to use the Bible as a historical source because it is a historical source, but I'm not quite clear how your point about the term 'Caucasian' is relevant to the story of Noah. The bible does say that the descendants of Ham shall be turned black and be cursed with serving their white brethren. This has definitely been used as justification for slavery. It is also why Fundamentalist Mormons won't accept black people in their church, and the mainstream Mormon church only recently did so. So yes, there is a strong racist interpretation of those verses (or the translations of those verses we are given today). And yes, there has historically been a Europeanising of the person of Jesus and of Christianity as a whole. Many churches still depict Jesus and other holy people as white. Others have made a point of depicting them as black, as the bible mentions that Jesus had 'burnished' skin and woolly hair. I think that's in the King James version, but it's been a long time since I read it.

In my opinion it is better to focus on the deeds and words of religious figures and avoid depicting them at all. (I feel the same about statues of historical figures, but that's a different topic).

Caucasian is outdated, and its equivalent is 'Negro' which no one would say nowadays. I take your point about geography, especially because African people seem to be the only ones who are just described as 'black' while everyone else is Asian, European, Chinese, whatever. This contributes towards a pejorative view of everyone who is black, regardless of where they may hail from in the vast continent of Africa, or the Caribbean or elsewhere. It's all lumped under the category of 'black'.

Then again, there are valid reasons why data on colour is collected, and why the experiences of a Nigerian, a Congolese and a Haitian might all have something in common in terms of racial prejudice by virtue of the colour of their skin.

Put what feels right to you on monitoring forms and never mind what other people might mistakenly assume about you. Skin colour is not very indicative of a person's heritage.

Why are you bringing this up as an issue? Nobody uses the term any more. Every form says White, Black, Brown, Mr Blobby colour British among other things.

Can nobody see that it is this nonsense that is dividing us?

Look after your neighbours and be kind. The labelling, box ticking and segregation is pulling us apart.

I feel like I've entered a parallel universe

Even more so, that this very concept has its rooted in encouraging slavery.. in that apparently Noah’s Son had been cursed by his father to beat offspring that are “dark and primitive” and... that the northern Africans contributed greatly towards history because they have been blessed with beinf mixed with the whiter race and so watered down the curse.

Now... I’m not reading this from a controversial source.

Okay, so reading between the lines, you’re from the Middle East? I mean the whole concept of “white” and “brown” is ridiculous but it’s very difficult to arrive at a rational system now because it’s all so sensitive, so it seems like we are left with the remains of some old concepts to manage with.

What source is it that you’re reading from? Because I feel like your OP is overlaying two equally flawed sets of ideas; Biblical origin stories which are obviously back formed, and later attempts at scientific classification, which have their own issues.

starting a petition...

Here, have a

@LetsCombatRacism

European is not a skin colour. Lots of Europeans are not white.

Exactly! Why should the skin tone determine who someone is classified?!

I think geography makes better sense then?!

Do you seriously not understand that geography/region might have nothing to do with a person's genetical makeup?