*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

The more we make race important and divide people by it and give different privileges and opportunities based on it, the more parsing of race we’ll have.

@Empressofthemundane

The more we make race important and divide people by it and give different privileges and opportunities based on it, the more parsing of race we’ll have.

But race is important medically for example.

So what is used instead - White British, usually.

Honestly if you put Caucasian on foms today a significant number of people would go 'eh wot?'

This really isn't something you need to think about OP?

I wasn't sure if it's about forms (haven't seen it on any) or about the whole use of the word. It sounded like the latter.

I suppose you still go around calling disabled people 'cripples' then, LastTrainEast. We really need to start a campaign to stop having people spout about Orwell when they havnt read any of it properly.

Race is an important category. For instance how do you protect against racial based genocide if you cant even define the race? also certain illnesses can affect black and white people differently.

Race and diversity as with all important biodiversity is a beautiful and critically vital to appreciate and preserve. Race should not be politicised, weaponised and a dividing distinguishing issue. Some see the beauty of diversity others only difference, ignorance and hate. Why the sensitivity? Be proud of your heritage and respect those that have made you who you are! Never forget your heritage but also blend in to assimilate into society as all of us can be multi lingual and multi cultural if the heritage is originally multifaceted. The globe is forever a revolving much travelled and interconnected village. Lose the sensitivity and hate as that is historically why wars start and never ends well for anyone. World peace and prosperity!

Genocide is mostly carried out against ethnic or national groups, not races.

There are no different races in human biology. We are all the same race.

Would also like to point out the historic link between the word “Caucasian” and the biblical story of Noah.. because the subgroups of Caucasian wasn’t just europoids. It is “Aryans, “semites” and “hemites”.

And to further note how “whiteness” and blacknsss and the in between shades was seen as an indication of how “pure” or “primitive” you are BECAUSE of that narrative of the story of Noah.

Read more here : en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamites

To quote: (this was very triggering to read):

Beginning in the 19th century, scholars generally classified the Hamitic race as a subgroup of the Caucasian race, alongside the Aryan race and the Semitic[6][7] – thus grouping the non-Semitic populations native to North Africa and the Horn of Africa, including the Ancient Egyptians.[8] According to the Hamitic theory, this "Hamitic race" was superior to or more advanced than the "Negroid" populations of Sub-Saharan Africa. In its most extreme form, in the writings of C. G. Seligman, this theory asserted that virtually all significant achievements in African history were the work of "Hamites".

So in my view such classifications had indeed contributed to the slave trade and racism.

I’m aware they don’t carry such meaning anymore.. not to the people it applies to. But to historically colonised communities who have suffered the consequences they do. In my opinion

In the USA I’m legally “white” “Caucasian”. That’s the box my cousins tick over there.

Because historically levantinians and middle eastern (Jews) were given the right to be recognised as different from the people of colour and so have the right to queue up with the whites..

That “right” still holds. It’s a privilege that we managed to receive and not be treated as sun human. Because we aren’t dark enough for it..

But my cousin, with the same heritage as me, who is brown with an Afro, but is indeed 100 percent leventinian.. would probably be denied that “privilege”.

So it’s words loaded with negative implications.

Might not be a big deal when it comes to ticking forms, but I think the terminology we use help normalise certain patterns of thinking and it’s easier to start with that than just ignore it.

You couldnt possibly see an incident of genocide taking place against a race? really?

I assume you're happy to just bung any drug down black people as well then, Stripes, despite the dangers and ignore the fact corona effects different races in different ways

I’m quite disgusted and appalled that knowing this is the origin of the words and they’re still being used today.
Language evolves. Lots of words had offensive origins. Plenty of offensive words have inoffensive origins.

I think a real attempt at tackling racism should start from those terminologies.
I object greatly to this statement. It damages us to launder language, launder history and launder current people's beliefs. Hiding racism from polite society does not tackle racism.

I have been told by men that sexism is largely gone, everything is equal now. I partly blame the policing of language and the media because it hides the reality behind a woke facade.

You do not cure racism by teaching racists to use new words for the people they consider inferior/superior. They still believe in the relative statuses of the groups. All that's happened is the new words make it easier for you to believe everything is awesome and only a few extreme lunatics are racist. Not helpful.

what is the privilege that comes with ticking that box @LetsCombatRacism

I'm honestly confused. Undeniably there's privilege and racism linked to ethnicity and beauty but if your cousin has an afro she has an afro and any acceptance or racism she experiences will be on the basis of her appearance, not a box ticked on a piece of paper filed away somewhere with her name at the top.

I am wondering how she would ever be prevented from ticking one box rather than another box.

These things must be very different in the USA

I dont normally like the "is this all you've got to worry about ?" Sort of reply.

But if this leaves you "shaken" and you can spend the day fretting about Noah and writing paragraphs about your offense...you are very, very lucky.

1471, in cases of genocide, the perpetrators may define race and murder people based on any random criteria they select. If they kill a group based on any shared characteristics of skin colour, geographical origin, ethnicity and so on it is a genocide. It doesn’t need to fit into a universally agreed definition of who is in a particular race. Generally people who carry out genocides will make up races based on whatever their prejudices are; they are not really interested in making sure it accords to an internationally agreed definition of race.

Scientists agree that there is human geographical genetic variation. Women of European descent will miscarry in certain environments due to differences in the placenta. Sickle cell is more common in certain populations. Scientists do not believe that human variation means we can be divided up into races.

The classification came out of the transatlantic slave trade and European colonization. Those were already well under way before those classifications came into use (look at the date you quoted OP). Like many things, the justifications came after things were well under way.

Yes, both religion and science are used to perpetuate different social systems and ideas, always have been. The Noah story was one of many religious stories that perpetuate hate (though, again, Caucasians and Europeans are by that story descendants of Japhet and would not be under the same heritage as someone who is a descendant of Shem like Jewish people. This is important because of the verse commonly translated as "God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant" - so Europeans thinking themselves descendants of those who should enlarge and should use Canaan as their servant and be under God's grace in Shem's tent. That was very much a thing but it doesn't work if you mix the groups up).

And yes, Indo-Europeans - which is what most who previously fell under 'Caucasian' would now be classfied as - come in many subtypes. The whole thing then was trying to classify everything down, it was the style at the time - some of those systems still live on with their uses, others don't. That the US still clings onto that one doesn't say much for them, but most of the rest of the world has moved on from it for some time.

We still have racial groups categories because of their uses in discussing different issues and we've yet to come up with better. "European heritage" doesn't do any better, it's pretty meaningless. Yes people with the same heritage can have a range of skin tones, though if someone is your cousin, you shouldn't have the exact same heritage.

I can understand supporting Caucasian to be people actually from the Caucasus region, I do not get going on about how all these outdated racist categories had subtypes while trying to trying to push all Middle Eastern or 'Levantinian' into the same category when there are many subtypes and different heritages there. With Jewish people as you mention OP, there are subtypes. Even in Israel, an Ashkenazi Jewish people will have different experiences to a Mizrahi Jewish person. Different ethnic groups develop over time. Discussing as a category can have uses, but they will always include a mix of different people with very different experiences.

Its a good job people check the definition of genocide before carrying it out then.

Whether of not a genocide has been committed is decided by the international courts, not the perpetrators.

@Sinful8

Can we just put all the religious people on one island and let them fight it out?

Leaving atheists to get on with mass genocide progress.

I’m baffled that anyone would be arsed to consider this so deeply let alone to be motivated to write out such a long winded bunch of waffle that doesn’t even make sense, and then to hope we all agree.

The trigger warning was hilarious though, thanks for that.

*I have been told by men that sexism is largely gone, everything is equal now. I partly blame the policing of language and the media because it hides the reality behind a woke facade.

You do not cure racism by teaching racists to use new words for the people they consider inferior/superior. They still believe in the relative statuses of the groups. All that's happened is the new words make it easier for you to believe everything is awesome and only a few extreme lunatics are racist. Not helpful.*

That’s an interesting point strippedFridge. I understand where you are coming from but I’m not sure if I agree.

I think societies will always have those who carry racist/sexist/bigoted philosophies and translate it into their actions. It will also always have people who proactively want to stop those kinds of actions and are progressives.

But whatever is mainstream needs to be less enabling for those racists and provide a platform for progressives.

I understand that taking down statues of racist historians isn’t particularly helpful, because it omits that part of history that needs to be discussed with a critical eye with all its good and bad to slowly build a more progressive society.

Maybe I’m struggling to see though how replacing those terminologies with something that doesn’t have racial connotations would remove the possibility of looking at history in that way.

If terms like “negro” had been omitted for the heavy racial connotations it holds, why shouldn’t something like “Caucasian” that holds a divisive biblical narrative be scrutinized in the same way?

More so, if “red” Indian was seen as deregatory, why is “white” as a classification so normalised. It legitimises “yellow”, “red”... etc..

Bold fail.

I have been told by men that sexism is largely gone, everything is equal now. I partly blame the policing of language and the media because it hides the reality behind a woke facade.

You do not cure racism by teaching racists to use new words for the people they consider inferior/superior. They still believe in the relative statuses of the groups. All that's happened is the new words make it easier for you to believe everything is awesome and only a few extreme lunatics are racist. Not helpful.

Caucasian isn't Biblical. Descendants of Japhet are in the Bible, and came to be associated with Caucasians, but Caucasian didn't come into use until the 1780s, and wasn't popular until later. That both were used to support continuing enslavement and European colonization and racism doesn't mean Caucasian holds a "divisive biblical narrative" anymore than viewing phrenology as a bibilical narrative or that microchips are part of the biblical narrative because of the 'mark of the beast'.

There are actual Caucasians from the Caucasus region - it covers dozens of ethnic groups. Some of them could be viewed as White, depending on the context. White is a very contextual demographic, probably because those in power chose it for themselves.

It's not just White - Black is also a normal thing that many Black people themselves have chosen to use - largely to represent the similarities and differences in experiences a Black American or a Black Brit has in comparison to others 'of African descent' (and as part of a discussion that, in the US and many other places, they were stripped of other heritage as part of enslavement). Why would you think you've any right to take that from them? As someone "of mixed descent" including largely Indigenous American, I'm not sure how it's less racial to refer to me that way than as a "red Indian". They both have racial connotations, as do Mestizo, Metis, and the many other terms used to refer to people like me. There are differences in opinions even among ourselves, but all of them have racial connotations and they will all represent a large group of people who have very different experiences. That's how large groups work and until we've better terms for grouping people of different ethnic groups together (because the latter can be important in discussing social, medical and other issues), we're going to need terms for them and they will always take on a racial connotation no matter how we try to erase that, just like many medical terms end up taking on connotations no matter how much people would like them to remain neutral. Trying to blot the language rarely actually changes thinking, it needs to go deeper than that.

Also, many people have put up statues of themselves or by institutes they gave money to (I'll give you think if you immoralize me). We keep up and maintain those that have value, there is little benefit to keeping up those we don't. We don't learn history from statues, we learn status, we learn mythology, we don't learn history and there are far better ways to have a debate than maintaining a statue.

You are arguing for making obsolete a word that is already obsolete.

You will see neither Caucasian nor Negro on a British ethnicity survey.