Talk:White people

Southern Italian and Irish immigrants not always considered white in US?

In a biography of Frank Sinatra, I found an interesting passage on p. 22 at the bottom. Moreover, there is a 1995 book by Noel Ignatiev titled How the Irish Became White. It appears that Americans with "Nordic" (Northern/Central European) origins or ancestry at times (to be exact, a mere century ago) considered darker "Mediterranean" types "almost black", or "half-black". (I have seen the former not-quite-white status of Italian and Irish immigrants in the US mentioned elsewhere, too; it seems to be a well-known historical fact that should be easy to source.) Precedents to this thinking are easily found for example in Thomas Huxley, who surmised that Mediterranean types (his Melanochroi) had arisen from a mixture of light-skinned Northern European types (Nordic types, his Xanthochroi) and dark-skinned Australoid types, or in Giuseppe Sergi, who considered Mediterraneans neither white nor black (negroid) but brown (though their own category, not merely a mixture of the others), and as of African origin. Nice demonstration of the flexibility of the concept "white race", surely worth working into the article. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I've seen a reference somewhere to Irish people in Mexico as also being seen as 'black' in the past - I'll see if I can track it down. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Sergi did indeed think that Meds were of African origin, but he thought Nordics were too. In this respect his model is not that dissimilar to the standard "Out of Africa" line, though it was full of oddities typical of the Early 20th century. It's also worth noting that though he thought Medterraneans were a different race from Nordics ("race" here being a model for categorising populations), he thought they were superior to those pasty-faced notherners. A lot of this stuff about various European peoples being or not being considered "white" is highly over-simplified by the proponents of so-called "whitness studies". That's because they equate the racial category "Nordic" with "white", and then conclude that the Irish, Italians etc were condidered non-white. In fact that language is very rarely used even by the most rabid-WASPS in the early twentieth century. It's a product of 1990s academic ideology. There's talk of "nordics" and "natives" (meaning Anglo-Saxons, not Amerindians). The Immigration Act of 1924 was designed to reduce southern European immigation, but the language used did not adopt a white/black binary opposition. Mexicans were often considered non-White, only the grounds that the population was highly mixed, racially (see the 1916 film The Aryan in which the plot was summarised as follows: "a white man, who, foreswearing his race, makes outlaw Mexicans his comrades and allows white women to be attacked by them."). Paul B (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy: I seem to remember reading something about that too, perhaps in the context of the Black Irish, but I'm unable to turn up anything about this one anymore. I just can't think of suitable search terms, nor the terms used in Spanish.

Paul: Are you sure that it's all a recent invention? Are you saying that the Frank Sinatra bio is completely wrong about the KKK targetting Italians too, and that Noel Ignatiev's book is about a mere myth? I find that hard to believe. Do you have any comparably reliable counter-sources for your claim? I just randomly found a claim that intermarriage between Italians and blacks was allowed at a time when interracial marriages were outlawed (with the explicit justification that Italians were likely part black based on their appearance!), but no specifics (it was on a Yahoo! Answers page, not in a book, mind you). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. What I am calling a recent invention is the reduction of these racio-cultural debates and conflicts to a binary white versus non-white opposition. I'm not saying that there was not prejudice against Italian immigrants. There was, massively. There were "nativist" publications such as The Wasp, which campaigned for the restriction on Italian imigration, and, of course, the Nordicist movement in general was linked to such attitudes and the KKK. Paul B (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

See also Definitions of whiteness in the United States#European Americans and Whiteness studies. Caucasian (in the legal sense), Nordic (a subtype of Caucasian) and white (a more informal category) are all different concepts.

Curiously, even the Finns were once considered suspicious, due to "Asian" admixture – however, while the speakers of Proto-Uralic were indeed likely East Asian/Mongoloid (like the East Uralic peoples) in view of the placement of the Pre-Proto-Uralic homeland in the Sayan/Lake Baikal area (per Häkkinen 2012, following Janhunen), the modern-day Finns are, together with the Swedes, the most Nordic-looking people anywhere (presumably because in their migrations to the west, Uralic speakers linguistically assimilated more and more Indo-European – especially Baltic, and later Germanic – groups, a process continuing into modern times in Finland). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=White_people&diff=557009223&oldid=556968476

I see no valid reason to remove it, and given that nobody else has objected to it over the past couple of days, I believe it is well within the parameters of acceptable content. If someone wants to beef up the descriptions accorded to Arabs, Chinese, etc, they are more than welcome to do so. Otherwise, this is an unnecessary removal of sourced content, and arguably constitutes vandalism or POV editing/IDONTLIKEIT.Evildoer187 (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed it because: 1. "However, others contend that..." There's no reason to add quotes from 2 activists on one specific group and to focus here on one specific group, but not on the others mentioned in the "among those not not considered white...", especially when some of the other groups are much larger in number and had more difficulties assimilating. THAT is POV and agenda-pushing. 2. The second one about "Middle Eastern peoples" doesn't even mention most of these groups in the whole source. Yuvn86 (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Other sources were included, not just those two. And again, if you want more detail added to the passages on other minorities, then find some sources and include it yourself. Don't delete sourced material just because others are not represented to that extent. And given my past interactions with you, I have ample reason to believe that this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 2. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

In any case, STOP reverting until consensus is reached. If you don't like the current version, discuss it here and gain consensus before you revert.Evildoer187 (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, and before I forget, Jews are defined (on Wikipedia no less) as a Semitic/Middle Eastern people.Evildoer187 (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

We don't cite Wikipedia as a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

And as for the dispute itself?Evildoer187 (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The material relating to Jews does seem somewhat excessive in the context, as does the coverage of the US in general, especially given the fact that we provide links to several other articles giving in-depth coverage. Frankly, the whole article is a rag-bag collection of questionably-sourced material, POV-pushing factoids and out-of-date 'science'. It is neither balanced, nor complete (why no mention of New Zealand for instance?). Personally, I'd be happy to see the lot deleted - but if we are stuck with it, there should at least be an attempt made to give a complex subject proper and balanced coverage, rather than leaving it as a dumping-ground for whatever the POV-pushers are currently pushing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. This is why I have asked people to add more material to the passages pertaining to other minorities, so as to balance things out somewhat. My expertise is in Jewish matters, as I am Jewish. I have no interest or concern with other minorities/people of color, so this is best left to someone else. It's a more logical approach than simply removing sourced material and replacing it with your own personal POV.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

'Precisely' what? I suggest that the coverage of the US is excessive, and you take that as a justification to add more material, and call for others to do the same? As for your assertion that you "have no interest or concern with other minorities/people of color", frankly I find it offensive - if you aren't prepared to work towards producing a balanced article, you have no business editing it at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

So? What's stopping you, or anyone else, from adding more material to those countries instead of complaining about how one is too big? I don't mess with the passages pertaining to other minorities for the same reasons I don't edit articles on painting.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this is way "undue" here. The citations do not support the assertion "that Jews are still generally excluded from whiteness." Obviously there are ambiguous cases and also unambiguously non-white Jews, but that's quite separate from the claim that Jews are "generally" excluded from whiteness. One source - which is just journalism - asserts that in Amerca "white" means "to be the beneficiary of the past 500 years of European exploration and exploitation of the rest of the world". Frankly, that's just silly. It's not a scholarly view, or even a coherent one. Paul B (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That's why I said "others argue".Evildoer187 (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

But that kind of phrasing just allows very fringe or rhetorical assertions to be given undue weight. Paul B (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed it.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You can claim to be anything you want, Evildoer, even a rabbi. If you have ideas and opinions to push, especially in this field, then maybe a message board is the place, not an encyclopedia. Yuvn86 (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

What exactly did I claim to be? From my perspective, you are the one who is POV pushing. Your editing/reverting patterns and general attitude towards me clearly indicate that there is something bothering you about what I am doing. Care to explain what it is?Evildoer187 (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, this text isn't encyclopedic. The text violates WP:NOT#ESSAY; it basically violates WP:COATRACK; it totally violates Godwin's law (I know that's not WP policy). It even rambles:

And so even as a Christian, I say continually to my Jewish brothers and sisters: don't believe the hype about your full scale assimilation and integration into the mainstream. It only takes an event or two for a certain kind of anti-Jewish, antisemitic sensibility to surface in places that you would be surprised. But I'm just thoroughly convinced that America is not the promised land for Jewish brothers and sisters. A lot of Jewish brothers say, "No, that’s not true. We finally—yeah—they said that in Alexandria. You said that in Weimar Germany."

Argumentative, off-topic (Egypt? Did Jews get regarded as not white there?), and opinion asserted as grounds for a position ("I'm thoroughly convinced"). If you could provide a concise summary without these flaws, that would be a start.--Carwil (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I have reworked the end of this paragraph - the old text was disjointed and cumbersome to read and felt like a series of hlaf-relevant add-ons to the main thrust of the paragraph (which is that the definition of 'white' is 'contested and always changing'). Also some of the refs didn't mention "white" at all, and much of the content was not mentioned in the refs, including the list of nationalities. I've tried to keep the main points of the original content (where supported by the refs) and relate them back to the rest of the paragraph. My apologies if I've stepped on anybody's POV toes. Tobus2 (talk) 06:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"Rest of Africa"

I've removed this section. I would encourage people who want to collaborate in improving it to read the beginning of the "census and social definitions" section in which it appears. Friends, Africa is not one big country; it's a continent with multiple racial dynamics, at least five colonial authorities, and some uncolonized areas, many more state languages, a major sub-Saharan/North African distinction, and a wide range of skin phenotypes. So, no to the "rest of Africa" as a regional category. If you want more of Africa in this article, start with one case and work up.

Here's the text in question, with broken in comments on problems.

Rest of Africa

Prior to the decolonisation movements of the post-World War II era, white people were represented in every part of Africa.

"Represented" is an appalling euphemism. Who are these people and how did they get there? Also, who was "white" in which place? How did these people become labeled as white, while these people became non-white? How did such definitions happen in different places?

Decolonisation during the 1960s and 1970s often resulted in the mass emigration of European-descended settlers out of Africa—especially from Algeria (1.6 million pieds-noirs in North Africa), Angola (half-million whites), Kenya, Congo, Mozambique, and Rhodesia.

Just bad writing. Decolonisation shouldn't be the subject. "European-descended settlers" is. If we want to explain their movements, great, but that should be done clearly and based on reliable sources.

Nevertheless, White Africans remain an important minority in many African states. The Sub-Saharan African country with the largest White African population is South Africa, with formerly sizable minorities in Rhodesia, Angola and Moçambique nearly extinct due to migration.

South Africa isn't in the "rest of Africa." Rhodesia doesn't exist anymore. Leaving isn't "extinction." Also, who qualifies as "white" now in the Algerian, Angolan, Kenyan, Congolese, Mozambican, Zimbabwean, and Zambian contexts? Is the term socially relevant? Are Arabs in these countries "white" or not?

Every time the article says "white" is equivalent to "of European descent," it misunderstands how "white" came to be defined in the first place, and how "white" continues to be defined differently in different places.--Carwil (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea if this is a reliable source, but this is the kind of information that I'm talking about.--Carwil (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

White are already a minority in the US in therms of newborns.

White are already a minority in the US in therms of newborns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/whites-account-for-under-half-of-births-in-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting - but contradictory. As always seems to be the case concerning US demographic issues (see Race and ethnicity in the United States Census), the article gets in a tangle because of the way 'Hispanic' is used in this context: "Non-Hispanic whites accounted for 49.6 percent of all births in the 12-month period that ended last July...". It is of course entirely possible to be both 'white' and 'Hispanic'. If this is added to the article, it must avoid making assertions not supported by the evidence - which is to say that it can't actually state that "whites are already a minority in the US in terms of newborns"... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You are right to some extent. Hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race, therefore they can be of all races. That said, 3/4 of Hispanics are of Mexican origins and Mexicans who emigrate to the US are mainly Mestizo or Amerindian. In short, most Hispanics in the US are not white. US Hispanic whites may be a minority of about 10-15 per cent. On top of that, about 20 per cent of the US population who are not Hispanic and identify as white may not be white either. In short, there are reasons to believe that the article is quite right. It is also the impression that you get if you travel the country. On the other hand, of course, if we are to classify whites just by self-identification, then the issue is very different. But in that case you can also end up with a population that is actually mixed but who consider themselves white. Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Arab people, "ruddy" and some other terms describing skin tints (Bernard 1992)

Re this edit (and some earlier ones which I have not looked at in detail), see [1], [2], [3], [4]. The article assertions don't appear to match what the cited source has to say in these various places. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I noted the minor "Arab"/"Levantine" edit warring and so checked the source and updated it to the current version " the fairer "ruddy people" to the northeast (which included Turks, Greeks, Slavs and at times Persians)"

From the source:

• "..the Primitive Arabs who were the ruling element in the Umayyad Caliphate called themselves 'the swarthy people,' with a connotation of racial superiority, and their Persian and Turkish subjects 'the ruddy people' with a connotation of racial inferiority" (pg 18 - quoting from Study of History by Arnold Toynbee)
• "'White' - or occasionally (light) 'red' - means the Arabs, Persians, Greeks, Turks, Slavs, and other peoples to the north and to the east of the black lands. Sometimes in contrast to the white Arabs and Persians, the northern peoples are designated by terms connoting dead white, pale blue and various shades of red or ruddy." (pg 26)

To me this means "ruddy" was applied neither to Arabs nor Levantines, was only applied to Persians sometimes (the sources contradict each other) and was, among other terms, applied to Greeks, Turks, Slavs and other northerners. I've got no vested interest in this so happy to hear others interpretations, suggestions, rewordings etc.

Tobus2 (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The changing face of America.

I wonder if it is not important for such an article to include the fact that according to the US Census, Whites are a minority of new borns in the country, which means Whites are increasingly a minority in the US:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/minorities-in-america-census_n_3432369.html

I think it is most relevant, taking into account the contribution of the US to the concept of "whiteness".

Pipo