Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Define White

2456711

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    On the contrary. The more people who obsess with races and colours, the bigger chance there is of another Hitler arising.

    That's not going to happen. However, if we just ignore the issue, let ourselves think everything is fine and dandy then something bad will happen.
    Aladdin wrote: »
    We're all the same. We all came from Africa anyway.

    Irrelevant. I'm sure my ancestors travelled across the land that is Germany now, doesn't make me German.
    Aladdin wrote: »
    It's all down to pigmentation, nothing more.

    Sure about that?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    Irrelevant. I'm sure my ancestors travelled across the land that is Germany now, doesn't make me German.

    Well not quite so irrelevant - you didn't travel across Africa - you are African, as are we all :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote: »
    Well not quite so irrelevant - you didn't travel across Africa - you are African, as are we all :)

    Lol I'm not African. I had African ancestors at some stage of the human evolutionary process which I suppose I am proud of. My primary ancestors though are from Europe, so my European heritage is more important than my African one. But the most important is my Irish heritage. :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    That's not going to happen. However, if we just ignore the issue, let ourselves think everything is fine and dandy then something bad will happen.
    Who is saying that?

    My original comment referred to the question of who is white and who isn't.

    Who really gives a toss about whether people of Eastern European/Albanian background qualify as 'proper' whites? Why would anyone care?

    Irrelevant. I'm sure my ancestors travelled across the land that is Germany now, doesn't make me German.
    More the reason to not give a toss about shades of colour then.

    You are who you are. Your nationality is your nationality. I can't see why we should bother any further than that.

    Sure about that?
    Yep. Pigmentation is naturally part of evolution. Humans, like all other organisms, evolve to adapt to their surroundings in the most efficient manner. That's all there is to it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Who really gives a toss about whether people of Eastern European/Albanian background qualify as 'proper' whites? Why would anyone care?

    Sorry didn't understand fully what you were saying.
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Yep. Pigmentation is naturally part of evolution. Humans, like all other organisms, evolve to adapt to their surroundings in the most efficient manner. That's all there is to it.

    Yeh, they do and it's more than pigmentation. There are other physiological differences. Not saying there's any difference with the way we all think but there are physical differences other than just different skin colour.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As Chris Rock once said, "If you're a veteran, if you fought any war for the United States, you're an American. If you swam here, from some shitty country, you too are American. Everyone else, you're just lucky. All you did was come out of your mothers pussy on American soil." :D

    I can see why people feel a sense of belonging with regards to the culture of their country during their lifetime, but I don't really get identifying with things that happened in your country tens, hundreds, thousands of years before you were born. Banging on about things "my country achieved" before I was even born is retarded in my opinion. On the race point, I think moaning about human rights abuses, and what "our race," not any that are actually still alive, that happened before you were even born is equally retarded. Fine moan about existing racism (which imo is why white people are far less likely to define themselves by their race, whereas minority races are), but keep it to that.

    Anyway, define white? Good at swimming and cycling, not so much at sprinting and boxing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    Yeh, they do and it's more than pigmentation. There are other physiological differences. Not saying there's any difference with the way we all think but there are physical differences other than just different skin colour.

    Shock horror, people are different, that still doesnt get us anywhere towards defining who is one 'race' and who is another.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    You cant, its a stupid term, but then all racial theory is total rubbish.

    Someone said racial origin can actually be important because of subtle biological differences that 'tot up'. I'll see if I can find it. He was a biologist though, and wasn't saying that any race was inferior, rather that we're not as as identical as sometimes we're given the impression.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Someone said racial origin can actually be important because of subtle biological differences that 'tot up'. I'll see if I can find it. He was a biologist though, and wasn't saying that any race was inferior, rather that we're not as as identical as sometimes we're given the impression.

    So you'd have a check list, and if you fit most of the features of that 'race' you are it?

    And what is the starting point for this, white, black and yellow? Or is it more subtle than that?

    You cant define what a 'race' is, let alone define who might or might not be in it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    So you'd have a check list, and if you fit most of the features of that 'race' you are it?

    And what is the starting point for this, white, black and yellow? Or is it more subtle than that?

    You cant define what a 'race' is, let alone define who might or might not be in it.

    The shape of the skull is a good indicator a lot of the time but not the only one. Of course skin colour is an obivous one because it's the first thing you notice when looking at someone.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    Of course skin colour is an obivous one because it's the first thing you notice when looking at someone.

    So we pick a certain shade, and if you are one side of that you are white and the other side black, thats totally arbitrary.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    So we pick a certain shade, and if you are one side of that you are white and the other side black, thats totally arbitrary.

    So there are only blacks and whites in this world? Why does any discussion about race always turn into black vs white?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    So there are only blacks and whites in this world? Why does any discussion about race always turn into black vs white?

    I certainly dont think there are only blacks and whites, largely because I think the whole concept of race is totally stupid. How many races are there? And where do you draw the lines inbetween?

    What I was trying to point out was if you do it on skin colour then you have to put down an arbitrary line between one race and another, something which makes no sense.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    I certainly dont think there are only blacks and whites, largely because I think the whole concept of race is totally stupid. How many races are there? And where do you draw the lines inbetween?

    What I was trying to point out was if you do it on skin colour then you have to put down an arbitrary line between one race and another, something which makes no sense.

    And I already said numerous times on this thread that it's not just skin colour. Yes, it is ambigious, I'm not denying that. If you look at how humans have adapted to climates in respective regions you'll see differences. Even in Europe itself, people in Scandanavia tend to have a light hair colour whereas people in Iberia have darker colour because, well it's much hotter in Iberia than it is in Scandanavia. In Japan, most people have white skin but their facial/cranial features are different.

    Just look at this picture of an African albino.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The renowned Jewish, Caucasian and Male psychologist Erik Erikson was very clear about why identity was so vital to contentment. His description of what he called: "malignancies," that would occur from lack of development, he deemed: "repudiation." That is the individual, tragically, rejects their very own identity.

    The crisis that erupts from this horror he called: "role confusion." They don't know what to wear, how to act, who to marry, who to be friends with, where to go to church, how to cut their hair; they are lost. The answer they are shoveled is: "just be yourself." This begs the obvious question: how? They have forgotten how to be themselves, because they have rejected themselves or were never taught who they are.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    back in the day, it was considered that there were 3 races, white, black and asian (or caucasian, negro and mongoloid, until some people decided that these can be offensive terms...)

    'white' includes hispanic, indian and arabic, due to the similar facial structure. the pigmentation is more to do with the environment.

    'black' also includes aboriginal australians, while 'asians' is considered to be the far east and south east asia, but also towards north american, as native americans also have a form of epicanthal fold in the eyelid, and other oriental characteristics.

    this 3 race categorisation is very 19th century though, and it was later considered that there were 5 races...

    but the lines are getting blurrier and blurrier.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    drumbeat wrote: »

    but the lines are getting blurrier and blurrier.
    Good. I can only hope in a few hundred years it is all but impossible to categorise people by race due to the hundreds of sub-races of all colours and shapes that might exist then.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Non black, asian, hispanic etc.
    I'm not sure how serious you are, but there is a serious corrolary to that in common expression: 'white people' vs 'people of colour' with Whites defined negatively.
    Budda wrote:
    1. You cant, [define 'White'] its a stupid term, but then all racial theory is total rubbish.

    2. No one is pure anything, we are all strange mixes of all sorts.

    3. Yes, various human groups from various parts of the world are different, but that isnt really 'race'. One group of 'black' people may well be completely different from another, same as 'whites' from one part of the world are different from another.

    4. In the terms it is used 'race' is totally a social contract because it is about power.

    5. I'm fine with people describing themselves as white or black or whatever, its when they form their identity from a pure accident of birth it irritates me.
    1. Nonsense. The terms Black and White are used all the time to describe groups and they are understood. I defined 'White' and it works.

    2. The 'mongrel' argument is flawed from its premise: mixes of what?

    3. The convention is 'race' for the largest, mainly continental groupings, and ethnys for the smaller.

    4. The ways our media, politicans, and assorted pressure groups use racial terms, is indeed about power, and it has been too for many social and hard scientists for the last 60 years. But it's not the case for all of today's scientists.

    5. I've never heard of anybody who identifies themselves solely by race. If you're interested, I suspect the rates of ethnocentrism for British groups will basically match the Americans if we substitute Asians for Mexicans.
    JimV wrote:
    1. Yeah but has fuck all to do with a term like 'race' - I've got welsh roots and probably some Briton or celtish way back - those are races - White isn't a race, it's just a pretty simplistic term that doesn't define anything. Hence the difficulty in defining it.

    2. It only seems to hold a value to me for those that want to exclude themselves from others.
    1. Races are usually understood to mean the large population groups, mainly at a continental level. Subraces, or ethnys, are also identifiable by both genotype and phenotype. Remember the guy that police were trying to identify last year - they had DNA only, but it was enough to track him to (I think) the Windward Islands - such detail of our human histories is written into our genes.

    It's really only as difficult to define as it is to know who is being spoken of. Blacks...Nelson Mandela and Haile Selassie; Whites...Churchill and HMQE2. Nobody mistakes Mandela for a White or the Queen for a Black.

    2. To differentiate, not exclude. In general, voluntary affiliations are made to join with others. In any case, hardly any Whites come together out of concern or interest in their racial group - I suspect that there are more White activists working against 'White racism' than for their race.
    Aladdin wrote:
    The more people who obsess with races and colours, the bigger chance there is of another Hitler arising.
    I think you may be right.

    As I said in my first post, where qualifying as 'White' once offered privileges, the reverse is now true, and when politicians, major foundations, quangos, social scientists, governments, and the media approach the question of 'Whiteness' it's with a quite different agenda.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just to clarify - you believe white people are now oppressed and that the holocaust is equatable with affirmative action?

    To clarify even further - you believe the nazis blaming a minority (the jews) for problems in the treatment of other Germans is the same thing as black community groups challenging racism and workplace discrimination?

    You're also linking to websites asking question such as 'whose view of reality is most distorted? Old female hippies or blacks?' 'Black atheists most likely to cheat on taxes' 'IQ rises with lighter skin for blacks' - ultimately one of those websites that presents repeatedly negative views of non-'white' groupings, but seems to avoid any stats at all that reflect negatively on a 'white' grouping.

    It may be the nature of where you've drawn your sources is questionable - but be aware of the rules you agreed to when signing up here when making further posts.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't really care what a specific definition of white is. I don't define myself as "white" but it's clear I have pale skin and if a person was describing appearance they may say I was white.

    I hate the term "hideously white" though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    XXXX wrote: »
    As I said in my first post, where qualifying as 'White' once offered privileges, the reverse is now true, and when politicians, major foundations, quangos, social scientists, governments, and the media approach the question of 'Whiteness' it's with a quite different agenda.

    Can you provide examples?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Anyone else suspicous of an influx of new posters on a thread about race?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    Anyone else suspicous of an influx of new posters on a thread about race?

    I know, coming over hear, using our threads, contributing nothing to the society. :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I know, coming over hear, using our threads, contributing nothing to the society. :p

    Post of the week...:lol:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Deport 'em back to where they came from! Stormfront most likely.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You have to wonder if they have scouts on patrol monitoring message boards across the net or if some people have a sixth sense for race-related threads, because sure as fuck they all start coming out of the woodwork the moment any such thread is posted.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Is there a fear of other p.o.v. when it comes to race discussion though?

    And though it's not the best link, Dr. Armand Leroi, from the department of biological sciences, Imperial College London, says that race may be more than a social idea: http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Leroi/

    Indeed, the recognition that races are real should have several benefits. To begin with, it would remove the disjunction in which the government and public alike defiantly embrace categories that many, perhaps most, scholars and scientists say do not exist.

    Second, the recognition of race may improve medical care. Different races are prone to different diseases. The risk that an African-American man will be afflicted with hypertensive heart disease or prostate cancer is nearly three times greater than that for a European-American man. On the other hand, the former's risk of multiple sclerosis is only half as great. Such differences could be due to socioeconomic factors. Even so, geneticists have started searching for racial differences in the frequencies of genetic variants that cause diseases. They seem to be finding them.

    Race can also affect treatment. African-Americans respond poorly to some of the main drugs used to treat heart conditions?notably beta blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Pharmaceutical corporations are paying attention. Many new drugs now come labeled with warnings that they may not work in some ethnic or racial groups. Here, as so often, the mere prospect of litigation has concentrated minds.

    I would say asking Dr. Leroi what the 'white' race is, he'd be able to give us a much better and specific answer based on our genes and biological make up rather than religion and social contexts.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    And I already said numerous times on this thread that it's not just skin colour. Yes, it is ambigious, I'm not denying that. If you look at how humans have adapted to climates in respective regions you'll see differences. Even in Europe itself, people in Scandanavia tend to have a light hair colour whereas people in Iberia have darker colour because, well it's much hotter in Iberia than it is in Scandanavia. In Japan, most people have white skin but their facial/cranial features are different.

    Just look at this picture of an African albino.

    Exactly, there are some many little differences, so many little sub groups that its impossible for it to be a proper scientific grouping, too many people are a mix and therefore dont fit easily into one group or another. For it to be scientific you need to have set definite standards which with 'race' you cant.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    Exactly, there are some many little differences, so many little sub groups that its impossible for it to be a proper scientific grouping, too many people are a mix and therefore dont fit easily into one group or another. For it to be scientific you need to have set definite standards which with 'race' you cant.

    But that is just nature in general. It's so diverse, the point I was trying to make was that even though Scandanavians and Iberians are not the same, they share more similar characteristics than a Black or Eastern Asian person.

    I'm not an anthropologist, I don't know all the answers but I'm just saying we shouldn't automatically dismiss or confirm the existence or non-existence of races.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There was an statement issued by the American Anthropological Association in 1996. It's quite an interesting read and is particularly relevant to this discusion

    http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
Sign In or Register to comment.