*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

I am not sure whether you (original poster) are confusing and confused or just confused.

Are you trying to explain terminology of ethnicity based on both religion and original geography?

Not sure quite what you are trying to say?

Caucasian as a term is generally agreed to refer to the white ethnicity originating in the Caucasus ie south eastern Europe and south western Asia. In terms of DNA it would probably be white but unlikely blonde blue eye Scandinavian type?

However in the English and North American English language aren’t the original scientific anthropological terms of Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid now out dated and considered too simplistic and also insensitive and offensive if inappropriately contested?

I think the global village with movements of people since cave man is now infinity complex. Take for instance Boris Johnson Kemal? Turkish, Caucasian Russian, French but born in USA. Some UK Muslims even claim he is of Muslim heritage. Ethnicities and heritage is super complex and no longer black, white, yellow, brown, red!? Include originating geography and religion into the mix and it’s impossible to pin down and agree scientifically!

Enlighten us original poster as to what you are actually referring to!? You totally loss me when religion was included as obviously this developed over time and impacted different original ethnicities and geographies before it became adopted.

arnt there any other words except 'problematic' for this stuff? always with the problematic.

As for why the Virgin Mary and Jesus are depicted differently depending on where you go, it’s very simple.
As Christianity spread, it was deviously clever. The missionaries would paint pictures of Mary and Jesus based on the local population specifically so that they would identify with them as divinities for them and convert.
So if you look at Greek depictions of Mary and Jesus, they are dark hair, brown eyes and brown skin. See Eleusa Icon from Greece.
When Christianity spread to Ethiopia, Mary and Jesus were depicted as black Africans. See other image.

Caucasian is generally considered an outdated term (it was invented in the 1780s and went out of use in the late 20th century). So you definitely aren’t alone in thinking it would be problematic to use.

In the current Uk system of ethnic groups you would presumably be either:
“Arab”,
“white (any other white backgound)”
or “Other ethnic group”.

It is widely recognised that none of these classifications are perfect and inevitably do not represent how everyone identifies.

YABU. I struggle to have sympathy for nonsense like this. I care about actual racism. People tying themselves up in knots over things rooted in culture from thousands of years ago is SO NOT IMPORTANT.

We have climate change, Covid and Brexit to deal with.

I suggest you spend less time on the internet. Just tick ‘none of the above’ on forms if it really bothers you.

@Stripesnomore

We can’t fit every country in the world on the ethnicity form. You would just tick Asian other.

DNA race tests are a load of nonsense anyway.

“Asian other”?! For a Palestinian-descended person?

www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

I wish I was making it up.. this news spread like wildfire in the Middle East back then..

I used to be a kid and wonder who George’s god was, because surely my god loves me and wouldn’t approve.

You might’ve missed this, just like many other religious inferences of foreign policies because it has no significance to you. But this is the religious moral justification that has allowed many people be murdered..

And I think it should be addressed..

@LetsCombatRacism

www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

I wish I was making it up.. this news spread like wildfire in the Middle East back then..

I used to be a kid and wonder who George’s god was, because surely my god loves me and wouldn’t approve.

You might’ve missed this, just like many other religious inferences of foreign policies because it has no significance to you. But this is the religious moral justification that has allowed many people be murdered..

And I think it should be addressed..

What on earth has any of that got to do with ethnic classifications?

As it then spread north, the Russian Virgin Mary icons had lighter hair and skin tone, as seen in this medieval Kazak icon.

Christianity in Western Europe we then have even blonder and paler Virgin Mary and Jesus.

There’s nothing about race in that article.

Of course many religious people try to do what they think God wants. And of course there are many complex religious, cultural, political and economic elements to why people start wars.

But you are playing dot to dot with history, jumbling up a bunch of different events - the crusades, 19th century scientific racism, recent obscure religious sects, and trying to make up a factually incorrect narrative about where racism comes from and how it developed.

PlanDeRaccordement
Appreciate your posts, and the illustrations. Beautiful.

Ricki, Palestine is in Asia. It is what happens to all the other Asian countries who are not specifically listed.

You've got too much time on your hands...

OP, just a thought.

Is it possible that your upbringing in the Middle East with its mainstream news sources are having a greater influence on you than you think?

I mean religion really is not that important to your average western European (could be a bit different in other parts of Europe, but don't know enough to tell). Religion doesn't really come into the equation much at all when it comes to geopolitics from a European perspective. A lot of European countries are expressly non - religious, they simply don't have a state religion.

Also, the US and the UK are very different. There are large pockets of Christian fundamentalism in the US, not so much in the UK.

And no, nobody cares about what the Bible says when it comes to essentially, biological /anthropological concerns, it's totally irrelevant.

Thank you @NotaRealLawyer.

Op:
George W Bush who was inspired by God to invade Iraq and went hand in hand with Tony Blair.. was it because Iraq is full of canaanites ?!

You are confusing George Bush with his son George W Bush. George W Bush did not invade Iraq. He retaliated to the 9/11 attacks by launching a war in Afghanistan against Osama Bin Laden who had ordered the attacks as well as other attacks in other countries. The 9/11 attacks were internationally accepted as fitting the definition of an “Act of War” against the US, similar to how the Pearl Harbour bombing was how Japan started war with the US, bringing them into WWII on the side of the Allies.

You can start a war two ways, formally declaration of war, or doing a surprise attack which is an an act of war. George W Bush being a born again Christian had to react as a head of state and finish the war. So obviously, he’s going to say that personally he doesn’t that as conflicting with his religion. He’s going to say he thinks god is on his side. This is nothing new. Bin Laden said god was on his side too.

Were there not two invasions of Iraq - the Gulf War (1990s) and the Iraq War (2000s)?

@Stripesnomore

Were there not two invasions of Iraq - the Gulf War (1990s) and the Iraq War (2000s)?

The 2000s was not a second invasion. The US and Coalition had never withdrawn from Iraq after the 1990s Desert Storm war. They simply used Iraq as a convenient staging point for getting forces to Afghanistan.

Thanks

They still haven’t left Iraq....

Don't know what your garbled post is saying. However 'Caucasian' does not equate with 'white'. 'Caucasian' is an outdated racial grouping which included people from Europe, Western, Central and South Asia, North Africa and the Horn of Africa.

It used to be thought (17th cent) that the human race originated in the Caucasus, as this was the putative landing place of Noah's Ark. 'Caucasoid' was a term used to refer to people who looked similar in terms of head and face shape, but they could be of any skin colour, white to dark brown.

With regard to beauty, are you referring to 'Circassian Beauties' - a concept which emerged in the middle ages, or to the penchent of both the Romans and the Ottoman Turks for Circassian slaves?

You are getting your knickers in a twist about nothing. Do your research properly and don't believe everything you read.

He’s going to say he thinks god is on his side. This is nothing new. Bin Laden said god was on his side too.

But isn’t that one of the many reasons why we all have a problem with bin laden?!

Thanks for those of you who are giving me food for thought. I’m going to wait for the evening to get my head together and read and reply properly. Some of you are coming across as interesting critical thinkers. I need to dig up a few resources so I can be on the same page as everyone. I’m really hoping to build understanding both for myself and for those like me (we aren’t few) that might read this one day..

I’m going to give this another shot at sounding comprehensive as I was a bit emotionally charged at my OP and might’ve been all over the place..

Thanks again for those who are reading.

Blumenbach did invent the idea of Caucasians based on the alleged beauty of a Georgian slave girl’s skull. So beauty was part of the original basis of the category.

I think I can explain the Noah stuff - please note this is definitely NOT my view, it's just I am a teacher so have had to teach about it in the past.

So the Noah stuff has historically been used to justify racism such as the apartheid in South Africa, but it is an interpretation of the story and the idea that his sons were of different races is not actually in the Bible. One of Noah's sons laughed at drunk, naked Noah and his brothers covered him up. When Noah sobered up he cursed this son and his descendants. There isn't mention of any skin colour, or the term Caucasian etc, but there have been people historically who have used this story to justify racism, such as the Dutch Reformed Church in the apartheid (I believe they have since apologised for this but haven't researched it properly).

However I think/would hope these days most people find this interpretation a bit ridiculous! It is also quite a niche story and, as this thread shows, most people aren't even aware of it. As for the Jesus thing, again, most people know he was Jewish and certainly not the blonde haired, blue eyed and white skinned figure that has been depicted in the past.

Sorry you feel you're ethnicity is not recognised on the tick box forms. If you don't like the term Caucasian don't use it. As others have said, I don't remember seeing it on a form anyway!

Wow this post is poorly written!

But I think it is generally acknowledged that Caucasian is an outdated term that has its roots in scientific racism of the 1800s. Most people don't use it (official forms in the UK definitely don't) and normally I only hear it being used by people who think they are using a correct scientific term but just don't understand that it is not scientific at all (they just think it makes them sound clever or is more neutral). Sometimes I correct, sometimes I don't (depends on the situation whether it is appropriate)...but it shouldn't be on any official forms

The definitions of races are drawn fairly randomly. I'd just advise not bothering with any of them. European isn't a race, however.