Talk:Caucasian race

A useful term in anthropology ? / The term "Indo-European" in conjunction with "Caucasian race"

"Within strict anthropological discourse the term is useful in identifying a very large group of people who present certain general physical characteristics"

What's the source for this claim?? AFAIK most biological anthropologists would use 'indo-european' rather than a term as empirically dubious as 'caucasian'. While this article makes clear the problems with the term, I don't think it does enough to make clear how discredited it is among the scientific community.

Indo-European is definitely linguistic and not anthropological.

Caucasoid has gotten more recent anthropological use than Caucasian, although it is not necessarily the same thing - the -oid suffix indicates it is supposed to be a looser category.

As for all these terms, yes, in recent decades many scientists and others feel any racial typology is a bad idea, but that discussion is centralized in articles like Validity of human races and shouldn't have to be repeated in each article, just referenced.--JWB 22:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry JWB, you are wrong, “Indo-European” is definitely not only a linguistic term (not longer). In recent time the meaning has been extended. Note, I am not a professional in this matter, but there must be a mention / explanation about the relation of “Indo-European” and “Caucasian race” in this anthropologic topic. How’s such an exactly will look, I cannot say.

Please note, I do not equate “Indo-European” 1:1 with “Caucasian race”, I absolutely recognize “Indo-European” as a subset of some larger human classification.

A solution could be, “In newer times, a lot of “biological anthropologists “have started to use “Indo-European” (in meaning for an “ethnic European group”) rather than a term as “Caucasian”. (Or something equal, my English is not perfect.)

However, as already mentioned, in the current version, this article ignores completely this important information. --lorn10 23:45, 24. June 2006 (CEST)

Usually excluding southern Europeans?

Usually excluding southern Europeans? (maybe the author of that sentence was an American usually confusing Latin Americans with Spaniards or Italians?) From where I stand, this article still lacks labour and must be improved. I am not going to make any suggestions at the moment.

Yes I think it is a pure american view of the concept. anyway we don't speak about "caucasian" in Europe. Nobody except the people who live in those mountains (Chechenians, azerbaidjans, armenians, etc...) would describe himself as "caucasian". Most people consider himself as "white", even if in Europe we generally don't identificate with a "race" but with cultural-linguistic groups. The latins, for exemple, are the people who speak a latin romance language (french, italians, spanish, portuguese), and, even if they have generally more dark-hair than the northener people, they have always been "White". The american view of "latin" is biaised by the fact that most of the romance-language speakers in USA are mostly of native indian or mestizo origins (non-white). So the latin word have been badly used to describe these people who didn't enter really in white or amerindian categories.

--GTubio 20:53, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In some definitions it does not include Southern Europeans. Race is considered a social-construction today. Many people in the US, especially Hawaii and the Southwest, view a "Caucasian" and a white to be the same thing. These definitions usually do not include Hispanics and other "Latins", but this is only a common understanding of Caucasian. Technically, Southern Europeans would not be considered all "Caucasian" due to their Middle Eastern admixture, stemming from the Moors and other transfers of power. I don't know whether Southern Europeans and Hispanics are real Caucasians, but race is a social construction, so they are included as Caucasians by most people. This is all explained here: white people or white people (different hosts needed to verify accuracy of transcription by corroboration)--^DarkTea 05:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Dark Tea the Moors you were talking about BELONG to CAUCASIAN race too!!! They were predominantly of BERBER descent (and lots of them are very light in complexion: Zinedine Zidane is a good example of this). I wonder why people in USA treat Souther European like they were "mestizos"._Sabrina-4 August 2007

Almost exclusively in the US?

I'm not sure this is true. The term is familiar as part of their language by speakers of British English. It is also used in professional communication by the British Police as in 'A six foot tall, brown haired caucasian male'.

(( Begin of text moved from Talk:Caucasian ))

Moved comment below from 129.100.152.211 from article to here:

Very interesting. As far as I know three groups, the Manchurian, the Yeniseyan and the Ainu, carried three blood groups Haplotype C, Haplotype A, Haplotype D to the Americas. That's how the American Indians got them. Another group, the Northern Chinese, went over later on with Haplotype E which is found commonly among the Pueblo and Navajo Indians. At the mean time, two central Asian groups carried Haplotypes D and C to Europe which is found commonly among modern day Caucasian populations. While Haplotype B which is totally absent among the Amerindians, spread among Caucasian groups and Mongoloids later on from Africa via the Middle East. And the Mongoloids, like their cousins the Caucasians developed male pattern baldness and resistence to epidemic deseases, which are almost absent among their cousins the American Indians. This is the basis on which our society is legally divided into Mongoloid(Asian), Caucasian-Mediterranean, Indo-Dravedian, African-Mulato and Amerind-Meztiso social groups. And these groups continue to celebrate Multiculturalism by cultivating their own images, feeling proud on TV networks and popular entertainment, helping people of different ethnicities to understand their own respective cultures, supporing members of their own respective groups in highschool cafeterias, in order to make this society more diverse.

-Frecklefoot

I am Scottish, Czech, and Albanian. Why do I note my ethnicity? Because I am 100%caucasin. My father is from Albania. The Albanians are;a.) Nomads who live in Eastern Europe. These nomads originally came from the Caucus Mountains. b.) They are the poorest country due to there resistance of frivilous self glorification. c.) Their language is recorded as being the oldest language in Europe. d.)Before thier pilgrimage to East Europe from the Caucus Mountains they fled from persecution from the Islamic Semites and Orientals. The point is caucasins both eastern European and English etc...are defined by common language,persuction for thier Christian beliefs and there long standing strength. I believe it good people love one another for their inner selves, which often comes around to who one is on the outside and through thier historical blood. Note: Oddly enough the English word yes is yo in Albanain, Ja pronounced "Ya" in German and of course the common thread runs on. One other comment I would like to add, the Galatians in The Holy Bible are better known as the Gauls. These people live were? They live in Europe. The Celts? The Celts were founders of Galatia!The Celts domination runs from Bohemia to the U.k. To close,simply put,Christianity is richly rooted in white soil....pretty amazing huh!

(( End of text moved from Talk:Caucasian ))

I have moved the Latin name to the History section, assuming that it was Blumenthal who coined it. Could anyone confirm that? Thanks...Jorge Stolfi 17:45, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Usage in Australia

the word caucasian originated from Caucasia, A small island off the coast of Oklahoma.

In Australia the word Caucasian is used to refer to those people that have Anglo-Saxon background, this happens in the media as well as in official documents. There is an important number of Australians who have Greek, Italian and other European background which are not regarded as Caucasians. The Australian government refers to them as the ethnic communities along with other racial minorities.--tequendamia 11:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

What non sense. You are an idiot . Causcasian refers to any white people. This makes it liable , though, to subjectivity, as some people that might be 'scientifically' referred to as Caucasion (eg Middle-eastern) would not be in 'lay' usage. Eg in the media when referring to crime- they usually describe the perpetrator as "a man of middle -eastern / medeiterranean origin".

-- The same happens to be true in Canada. The term Caucasian is one used in reference to white Anglo-Saxon people of European background, excluding Southern Europeans. I was surprised to read much of the information found in this article, especially given how it conflicts with most western social norms. Surely the content of this article is debatable, depending on whom you ask. However, in most of the modern west the term Caucasian refers specifically to white Anglo-Saxons, and possibly Slavs. I do understand that in Russia the term Caucasian is one used to refer to the people of the Caucus region.

Further, equating the term Caucasians with a scientific designation is a misnomer. It is a social construction and should not be confused with scientific jargon.

Genetics and race

The claim is not that skin color is unrelated to genetics - that would be silly. The claim is that there is no set of genetic characteristics that defines "the black race" as separate from "the white race" - that is to say that genetics cannot be used as the primary means of drawing racial lines. You have to resort to appearance - i.e. skin color. Not to a particular genetic sequence. This is not an obviously untrue claim, and I'd like to see some evidence against it before you revert it again. Snowspinner 06:44, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

No. You are building a strawman there, not that I think I can expect different from you anytime soon, you unfortunately being highly biased against White people and all (reference for people who might wonder about this: look to the race-discussion at the bottom of the VillagePump page for a couple of examples). -Three arguments saying that your version is both incorrect and POV-

• The article states; "Indeed, the advances in biochemistry over the past 30-40 years have revealed that the traditional racial divisions have no genetic basis."

1) Here it is stating that traditional racial divisions (Black, White, Asian, and so forth) have no genetic basis, when that simply is not true. DNA is heritable (sp?), and "race" is our name for groups of people having spread their genes more among themselves than with other groups, and thereby having gained unique genetic features if long enough time has passed. Race is a term for groups of people being markedly different from other groups, and these differences does have indeed basis in genetics. Therefore the statement in that article is extremely POV, even false, and is not fit for an encyclopedia.

2) The article itself even contradicts itself, because it says that "There is currently extensive debate on the scientific validity of racial classifications". First it says that there is extensive debate on the validity, and then it says that its validity is "indeed" 100%.

3)Quote: "Its relevance is debatable as a physical anthropological, ethnic/cultural or socio-political concept."

Here the article expresses even more POV, it even dictates what is and what is not debatable, even when it just said that the "undebatable" was under "extensive debate."

Therefore, your edits are incorrect, and I am not the one making controversial edits. Fix the article. - 66.185.84.80

Well, the advances in biochemistry over the past 30-40 years may have revealed that the traditional racial divisions have no genetic basis. But the advances in biochemistry over the last 10 years revealed that the traditional racial divisions have very old roots and hence they have genetic basis. 82.100.61.114 00:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, you are not a biochemist, making me suspicious of your blanket statements about what has and hasn't been revealed in biochemistry in the past 30 years. This makes me question point one very much. Perhaps you'd like to give a citation. Point two does not seem to me to contradict point one. The advances described in point one happened, launching scientific debate. This is largely how science works. As for point three, the fact that it is debated (As shown in the response to point two) proves its debatableness beyond, I think, any real doubt. Snowspinner 07:32, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Point 3: Of course the statement in point number three proves that it is in fact debatable, that is exactly my point. It thus also makes the article's blanket, de facto statement about the validity of the debatable very debatable indeed. It is the article that contradicts itself and makes "100% claims" about something that even you know is highly debatable, so give it a rest and free the article of this blatant POV.

Point 1: As for your simple, non-valid rebuttal involving a statement of my not being a biochemist: What I stated is the simple and widely accepted theory of evolution. Have you never heard of evolution, man? Or perhaps you have, and disagree? If the latter is true, then I must inform you that you are in the minority. The world accepted evolution a long time ago.

Point 2: So that's what it seems like to you. Unfortunately for you, seeming is not good enough. The sentences speak for themselves, they are in direct opposition. Please refrain from trolling behaviour when losing an argument.

- 66.185.84.80

To the anonymous editor 66.185.84.80: please take the time to read some modern scientific text on population genetics, and you will perhaps understand why that sentence is not POV. Trying to give a quick summary, some of the major discoveries in question (that 18th century anthopologists did not know about) are: (1) humans have tens (hundreds?) of thousands of genes, which are inherited independently and randomly from either parent; so classifying people by the visible characteristics like skin color and skull shape makes as much sense as classifying cars by their windshield decals. (2) there are no "pure races", not even "somewhat pure" ones: even when one looks at the "purest" races, there is much more genetic variation within each race than between the means of the two races. (3) even the most paranoid racial barriers are leaky as a sieve, so over a millenium or two any social group will become genetically very similar to the neighboring populations, and vice-versa -- even if the group continues to maintain its "ethnic" identity. And so on.
Because of these reasons, it is simply impossible to give any sound basis to the old concept of "race"; it would be like asking a car mechanic to provide a link between engine power and windshield decals. There simply isn't such thing as a "Caucasian gene" or even a "Caucasian gene set". An article which does not say this clearly would be doing a bad service to its readers.
Jorge Stolfi 09:34, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

• the 66.185.84.80 user's disruptive history and nazism, and the "race != one gene" straw man aside, of course race is genetic. it is a characteristic statistical distribution of genes. Badanedwa 05:47, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

"There is much more genetic variation within each race than between the means of the two races". Please stop repeating this PC bullshit and read something about anthropology! Your court PC brainwasher obviously forgot to tell you that these means are enough remote to make these differences very marked. According to you - and other daft anti-racial mythologists - there are no differences between seasons, because the difference between temperature extremes in January and June is larger than the difference between the means of January and June? You obviously belong to those people, who sunbathe on snow and skate on lakes in summer, don't you? In fact, at the most extreme ends of physical adaptation to climate and enviroment, there exist human groups, whose Bell Curves of main physical features virtually don't touch at all. Do you know, what's the physical difference between the body of an Eskimo and a Nilote? Obviously, you have no idea. The ideological sources of such PC claims are certainly not smarter than you, which shows, after all, something about their intelligence and their knowledge of human variation. Centrum99 01:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, one problem with defining rece that way is that there would be no clear-cut boundary between such "races", so labels like "Caucasian race" would become completely arbitrary. One could as well define a "United States race" as meaning (among other things) X% black skin, Y% white skin, etc. Another problem is that you would not be able to say whether an individual belongs to a given race or not: if "race" A is defined as 40% blue eyes, 60% black (and other things), while "race" B is the other way around, to which race does a blue-eyed individual belong?

This problem becomes much worse when you consider all genes instead of two or three. With 30 genes, each having two variants, you could define about one billion different "pure races", and an infinitude of gene distributions.

A more fundamental problem is that genes get inherited independently, and those which are bad/good for a given environment are quickly selected out/in while those that are indifferent just drift around. White skin may be an advantage in colder climates, but is a definite disadvantage if you live in the tropics at low altitude. (Spend a couple of hours under the sun in a tropical beach, without suncreen, and you will understand why.)

This problem is made worse by our modern understanding of how genes work. For instance, black skin involves complicated mechanisms for manufacturing and regulating melanin, depositing it in the right places, etc. etc. All humans have the genes needed for that mechanism, but white-skinned people ("Caucasian" as well as "Asian") have a small genetic defect somewhere that prevents the mechanism from working properly. Obviously this defect has nothing to do with intellectual capability or whatever other attribute that, according to old-style racial theorists, are associated with skin color.

For these and other reasons, modern population genetics does not even try to define the concept of "race". It s not that the geneticists don't like the idea, they just cannot figure out a way to define "Caucasian race" or "Nordic race" or "Jewish race" in any way that would make sense.

The measured amount of genetic variation in the entire human population is extremely small; genetically we are very similar. Indeed, 93% of all genetic variability occurs within Africa; the human groups with the greatest differences between them occur in Africa (See: Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, Piazza, 1994; Cavalli-Sforza, 2004). In this sense it as logical to compare Nigerians with Swedes, in inherent biological terms, as it is to compare Nigerians and South Africans.

All the best,
Jorge Stolfi 16:00, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

...

<there is no set of genetic characteristics>

There most certainly is, it just hasn’t been isolated yet.

In one of my high school classes during a disscusion about Condoleezza Rice, a slightly ditzy classmate remarked, (after the teacher had made a statement, describing her as black): "Yeah, but she's not THAT black." I think she was on to something; what black race? Caucasian race? never heard of it! Leon W, 6 Nov 2005.

...

BiDil anyone? http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2005/NEW01190.html

A drug tailored specifically to a "self-identified black patient". I think that should be some indication that there are in fact marked differences between certain human populations, just as African-Americans(I mean that in the strictest sense; The peoples of west Africa brought to the U.S.) are FAR more susceptible to Sickle Cell Anemia. http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/scdmanage.html

August 26, 2006

The BiDil studies have been severely criticized. See here (pdf). FilipeS 18:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Indian subcontinent

Indians are referred to as Caucasian? really? see Image:Map of skin color distribution.gif according to which East Asians have a lighter complexion that Indians. dab 12:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Though it seems odd now, yes, Indians were labeled Caucasian. It was not just about skin hue. My bet is that it is because Europeans had more experience with India than they did China because of their colonial history, but that is just a hunch. --Fastfission 14:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nope, the hogwash is based on good linguistics: see Indo-European languages. Ironicaly, these languages are not spoken in the Caucasus. Joestynes 09:36, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And not just solely on lingustics, Indians (from the North, at least), are descended from the proto-Indo-Europeans, who also gave rise to the Europeans, of course (in distinct contrast to the origin of the east and southeast Asians). A light-skinned Indian may be mistaken for one of European ancestry; the same would likely not be true for a light-skinned Chinese or Korean person, for instance. The facial features of Indians in general are similar to that of the other Caucasians. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:27, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well yes and no. Don't assume that 19th-century language categorization is any more "value-free" than race categorization. And let's not give too much credit to the "visual similarities" argument, which is nonsense on a number of levels. --Fastfission 16:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the darker features in the Indian subcontinent come from pre-Aryan peoples, particularly the Dravidians.---BDH

That's not fully correct. The oldest inhabitants of India were people belonging to the called "Coastal Clan I". They reached this region probably ca. 60 000 years ago and bore Y-haplogroup C and mtDNA haplogroup M. Anthropologically they can be classified as "vedd(o)ids" and their current descendants are some primitive dark-skinned tribes in India and the Vedda in Sri Lanka.

The second human layer in India were the so-called "dalits" (as they are called today), archaic europids bearing Y-haplogroup H, who penetrated into India from the west perhaps more than 30 000 years ago, eliminated (killed?) the majority of "Coastal Clan" men and mixed with their women. These people now make up 1/3 or even more of Indian lower castes and tribal groups. They are even ancestors of the European Roma. "Pure" dalits in India are thus basically mixed Europid-Veddid people.

The third basic human layer in India are the Dravidians, agriculturalists from Baluchistan, who penetrated into the Indus Valley in the 4th millenium BC and created the famous "Indus Valley Civilization". They bore Y-haplogroup L and probably even a subclade of Y-haplogroup J. It was probably Dravidians, who set up some sort of the caste system, because the admixture of the dalit H-lineages in Dravidian upper castes is very low. Since they mostly took dalit women - as it usually is in new invaders - , they partly acquired Veddid appearance.

The fourth and last basic layer in India were the Aryans from southern Russia speaking an Indo-European language. They got to India from north-west around 1500 BC and predominantly bore Y-haplogroup R1a1. It is possible that before Aryans, some Aryan population was already present in northern India (maybe the so-called Dasya from Indian legends), because Indian R1a1 is highly diverse. The Aryan invasion probably also brought Y-haplogroup R2 from Central Asia. In any case, Aryans defeated both the Dasya and Dravidians; Dravidian nobles fled to southern India and a large part of the dalits followed them. The north-west of India was actually largely "cleaned" on ethnical basis; remaining Dravidians and dalits were largely subdued and "de-casted". The Aryans set up a very strict caste system that, however, allowed some interethnic admixture of the Aryans into the Dravidian upper castes during the following milleniums. From some reason, a part of some dalit nobles was left on middle Ganga and joined the Aryans.

Thus (according to Sengupta et al. 2006) current upper Aryan castes in India mostly contain Y-haplogroups R1a1 (45%), R2 (16%) and H (13%). The Aryan tribal groups and lower castes actually consist of subdued Dalits and possibly mysterious Dasya, as the high presence of H (24-33%) and R1a1 (10-26%) shows. Dravidian lineages (L, J2a) are generally rare in Indian Aryans (but possibly much common in Pakistan), which also indicates that Dravidians didn't occupy the whole territory of India before the Aryan invasion - only the Indus Valley.

The Dravidian upper castes mostly contain R1a1 (29%), L (17%) and J2a (15%), but surprisingly low dalit admixture (H: 8%). On the other hand, dalit lineages are frequent among middle Dravidian castes (34%), together with L (19%) and J2b (19%) that got to India somehow from the Near East. The Dravidian tribes mainly consist of subdued dalits (37%) and even mongoloid groups (O: 27%) that probably occupied the east of India before their arrival. The presence of Y-haplogroup C (the "Veddid" lineage) is very low across the whole India (max. 4%) Centrum99 01:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Offensive, Americocentric article

(though Americocentric should not mean offensive)

Southern Europeans are described as "Latins"? Maybe by you they are. Are Greeks Latins? Maltese? Cypriots? They're all Southern Europeans.

The opening paragraph does not even make clear that this "concept" is entirely discredited! There's no such thing as a "Caucasian race". The term is used loosely in the US for "whites" but that doesn't mean it has any reality.

As noted, in Europe, "Caucasians" are people from the Caucusus, nothing more, nothing less. I noted Dbachmann's reversion of some changes. He said in his edit summary that they were not "NPOV". Well no, but neither's this article as it stands. I think some of the changes could have been incorporated, in more moderate language.Dr Zen 09:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree, you have improved the article. dab (ᛏ) 09:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE TAKE NOTE- THIS IS IMPORTANT!

Colour is not the onlt thing that determnines a race, race is also about features. e.g. if you make a European persons skin colour darker and their hair they would look that far off from somone who is from India, middle east or meditarrian. This is because their features are similar (not the same) However this will not be the case for Oriental people or Black people as features such as hair nose lips are different.

Also the Causasian or White race as it is known these days comes from a part of Asia called Caucaus hence these Europeans are from Asia. Some split into Europe and the Med others into West Asia(middle east) and others into South Asia (Indian Sub- continent) Another theory is that the originate from India many thousands of years ago and not the theory somone put earlier that Indians are causasians because the british were there, more the other way round

Use of talk page

I've once again deleted the long and free-wheeling essay posted to this page. Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing changes to articles, not for giving your opinion about the use of terms in television, your opinions on political correctness in general, or your theories on the origin of "wigger" culture, as you put it. If you have concrete suggestions as to how to improve the article, please feel free to contribute them. As it is, your comments are cluttering up the talk page and far exceed what the purpose of talk pages are for. Please feel free to post them on your own user page and link to them from here if you must. -Fastfission 03:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[Note: I agree that one may reasonably object to the original post on the grounds that it was too long, and at times too broad in scope and overly speculative. I will not repost the original but will instead post the following more concise, more focused version:] Wikipediatag 13:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Use of the term 'Caucasian' wrt Southern Europeans in the U.S.

The term 'Caucasian', as used in the United States, includes southern Europeans, contrary to the claims of an earlier edition of this article that it does not. To suggest otherwise is simply inaccurate. Anyone suggesting otherwise is undoubtedly confusing and/or conflating southern Europeans with 'Latinos/Hispanics', a term which in the United States refers to persons of Latin American origin who may in fact be of any race but are often casually referred to as 'non-white'.

Wikipediatag 13:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some authors?

I challenge the vague claim "Some authors have used it to specifically refer to Northern Europeans ..." and request documentation of who precisely these referenced authors are. Are we talking about the writings of fringe elements (such as Nordicists and/or Neo-Nazi types), or credentialed anthropologists? If the former, I think that should be stated clearly.

Wikipediatag 13:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Useless linguistic criteria

The listing referred to a "Finno-Ugrian" descent. This is rather misleading, as it groups together genetically very different people based on linguistical grounds. For example, some classify the Samoyeds as "Finno-Ugrian", and there you go. There was a theory that the speakers of Finno-Ugrian languages had a common ancestry, but this theory is discredited. Likewise, there were attempts to link Fenno-Ugrian languages with Asian ancestry. Again, this was unsuccessful (e.g. [1]), as it was more an attempt to show the "racial purity" of the Swedish. The Fennic language speakers of North Europe are genetically similar to the nearby peoples, the Hungarians are like Turkish, the peoples in Siberia are like the Siberians, etc. The language is unrelated to the "race". --Vuo 23:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

The question is whether or not it has been historically used in that fashion. Historically the link between language and race has been variously emphasized. But I don't know about this particular aspect. If there was a theory but it has been discredited it is worth noting. --Fastfission 01:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

"Whites" a redirect?

Why was "Whites" redirected to this article? Gramaic 05:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

---Caucasian race-- is a term coined by an alien pseudoscientist with an inhuman aim.The introduction of that term into science and politics has lead to almost incessant wars of the undesired immigrants against the indigenous population. One will not find that term in the chronicles of the indigenous population when it was governed by the local king-till 1864. The term Caucasian derives from the word "Cauc" that is simply 'snow', 'snow-clad'in Kartuli. title_nation@mail.ge

My recent addition

My recent addition about Blumenbach believing the original humans to be white comes from "Mighty White of You" by Jack Hitt in the July 2005 issue of Harpers'. The particular citation is on p. 46. The format of references in this article didn't give me an easy way to add that in the article, so I'm putting it here for the benefit of whoever is actually working on this. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:56, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Merge with whites?

I've begun to think this page should be merged with whites. Although I'm not saying that they are exactly the same concept, it seems to me that they are difficult to treat one in isolation from the other. In addition, as the article states, the expression Caucasian race is really only common in the United States. In other places, they necessarily fall back on terms like "white race" or "European race". - Nat Krause 13:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

No. The idea of a "Caucasian race" is a specific thing not entirely the same thing as the idea of "whiteness". It is a specific formulation of "whiteness" as an anthropological entity (that is, a "scientific" rather than a "folk" version of "race"). They are of course very related but not the same thing. --Fastfission 15:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not saying that they are exactly the same concept, but it seems to me that they are difficult to treat one in isolation from the other. - Nat Krause 18:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the difficulty. This article is about the "scientific" "racial" term and its implications and usages. The whites article is about a broader "ethnic" identity. They are related to one another and cover a lot of the same ground, most definitely, but they are not the same thing. Additionally, as this article points out, the anthropological idea of a "Caucasian race" includes a lot of people not considered to be either "racially" or "ethnically" white (i.e., people from the Indian subcontinent). --Fastfission 22:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The difficulty, I would say, is that it is impossible to draw a clear distinction "white" as an ethnicity and "Caucasian" as a race. In the United States (and I think this is typical of Western countries), "white" is normally conceived of as a race. How can the concept of an ethnicity which defines itself as a race be separated from the concept of a race proper?

The beginnings of the articles in question show exactly this sort of difficulty. Caucasian race says, "The term Caucasian race is used ... to mean "white" or of European ancestry". Whites says, at the end of the intro, says "In North America, and to a lesser extent other countries, the term Caucasian is widely understood to mean white." Strangely, it also begins by defining white to include Middle Eastern and North African people (in addition to being self-referential by including "White culture" in the definition, and then having a final clause which makes no sense).

Even if you could clearly separate one from the other, the results would not necessarily map to the normal uses of the words in question (i.e. we might be better of moving whites to something like Social perspectives on whiteness).

I'm not sure that it's true that "the anthropological idea of a "Caucasian race" includes a lot of people not considered to be either "racially" or "ethnically" white". That sounds like a contradiction to me: "white" is a race, so, if it is in evidence that a given person is racially Caucasian, then that person must be white. The fact that Americans don't normally consider Indians or some Arabs to be white might show nothing more than that our thinking is contradictary. I think this sort of anomaly can be more easily explained by dealing with both subjects together. - Nat Krause 15:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

"White" is a color, not a race. If you don't know that "the anthropological idea of a 'Caucasian race'" includes South Asians, many of whom are brown-skinned, then you have no business editing this article. You might consider brushing up on proper quotation nesting as well. ThePedanticPrick 17:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I could say the same to you. The colour white is discussed at white; we are discussing white in the sense of a race/ethnicity. This article itself says, "The term Caucasian race is used almost exclusively in North America to mean 'white' or of European ancestry". Being brown-skinned doesn't necessarily exclude you from being white; for instance, some Italians are quite dark, but I don't think many people today would dispute that they are white. - Nat Krause 14:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Caucasoid should be considered along with Caucasian race and Whites. This article is not of high quality and suffers from edit wars and material that should be in other articles. It should be stabilized with a wider consensus on what belongs there, or merged. Some discussion at Talk:Caucasoid.--JWB 23:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Why is Caucasoid separate from Caucasian race in the first place? - Nat Krause 15:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It is a slightly different thing. Caucasoid, as I understand it, is used by modern forensic anthropologists to aid in identification of remains and things like that. It does not necessarily refer to a "Caucasian race", a concept which most anthropologists don't think exists. If you think it sounds difficult to say that a concept can except in one framework and not another, well, you're not alone, and this battle is still being fought out within the disicipline. In any event, they are closely related but not really the same thing because of this distinction. --Fastfission 20:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

To me, that sounds like different working definitions of the same basic idea. I think it would be more profitable to merge them. - Nat Krause 14:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, they're not the same idea, whatever they sound like to you. Why don't you just leave this to people who have more experience with these topics? I don't mean to sound snippy but I don't think you have enough knowledge about the topic to judge on something like this. The terms have different usages, histories, and meanings. They are related but not the same thing, and there is no reason to merge them. --Fastfission 14:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Biblical "Legend"?

I suspect that the use of the word legend as in "Biblical legend" is unecessarily offensive to those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. I suggest changing it to "According to the Bible", or "according to the the Biblical book of Genesis."

(I don't intend to get into a debate on anything here beyond the thought that some readers would be offended by the word legend.)

I suppose we should also change the article on Greek mythology since the word "myth" might offend the ancient greeks? Wikipedia doesn't need to suck up to Christians or any other group. If something in the bible hasn't been historically verified, then it's fine to call it biblical legend. ThePedanticPrick 21:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Anthropology

There are some very basic tenents in scientific Anthropolgy that should be applied. That science has become heavily revised for political correctness etc. but the concept of 3 large inclusive races of mankind still actually enjoys wide acceptance. Please leave the edit that calls attention to the inclusiveness of the term "Caucasian" it includes about 35% of the people on earth. Black Dravidian people in the south of India, light brown people in the north of India, Olive skinned people in the middle east, who become lighter as you enter the mediterranean region, and finally the very fair shinned of northern Europe, and their immigrant relations in the Americas and Australia. Spray them all the same color and their similarity is obvious!

Caucasoid

Why doesn't "caucasian race" redirect to Caucasoid?

it means the same thingRobwi 05:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

There has been no discussion regarding merging these two articles ("Caucasoid race" and "Caucasian race"). Is that because the consensus is for it or against it? I'm going to assume "for it" and merge the two about a week from now unless there's strong objection -Psychohistorian 18:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

They do NOT mean the same thing. "Caucasoid" is the racial term that includes "whites", Semites, Armenians, Gypsies, Irano-Afghans, North Africans, and some Indians/Pakistanis. "Caucasian" is NOT a racial term, and merely refers to anybody, or indeed anything, that originates from the Caucasus mountains, the "Caucasian" people are Armenians, Georgians, Azeris, and a few others. We can have Caucasian flora, Caucasian music etc, but NOT a "Caucasian race".....22 March 2007

Can you show me a reference that only some pakistanis/indians are classified as caucasoid as claimed by you. What is this bull shit Irano-Afghan. People of Iran look like afro asiatic middle eastners whereas Afghanistani people are distinct from the iranians or middle eastners. Have you ever been to Afghanistan , how many afghans and iranians have you seen to establish some pseudo irano-afghan bull shit category.

Sorry to intervene here but my father is Iranian and I can say that many Afghans look typically Iranian. Mostly, Afghans look Iranian, Chinese/Mongolian, and some look like north Indians, to varying degrees of mixture between the three. Afghanis mostly speak either Persian (the same language as Iranians) or Pashto (a language which diverged from Persian in ancient times) and most are historically supposedly descended from the same people as the Persians, in ancient times and more recently. Many people in eastern Turkey and many Iraqis also look Iranian, because these countries are next to Iran. You don't suddenly cross a border and get people who look different. If you have frequencies of features in a certain area, and different frequencies of features in another area, you generally get a gradual change in frequency as you move from the first area to the second (which is one reason why many people don't believe in the concept of race - there are no clear divisions). I can't tell the difference between a typical Afghani (so long as they don't have any Chinese/Mongolian features mixed in) and a typical Iranian. I can tell the difference between a typical Egyptian and an Iranian, a typical Palestinian and an Iranian, or a typical Saudi Arabian and an Iranian. Please note that I said if they are TYPICAL in appearance. Holymolytree2 08:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the intelligent and scholarly dismissal using the scientifically valid term "bull shit", but my "Irano-Afghan bull shit" stems from the fact that while not having studied this stuff as such, I have read extensively on the subject. Oh yeah, and I AM Irano-Afghan. Please don't lower the tone of your arguments, as they are rather pithy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.190.183 (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, what an idiot. This guy's comes up with his crap about Iranians not looking like Afghanis when two people with Iranian blood say that they mostly look the same (except many Afghanis have mongoloid blood). Holymolytree2 20:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Original inhabitants of North Africa Caucasian?

No evidence has been brought of this. I would like some prrof before people make such claims. As it currently stands the berbers are believed to be the original inhabitanst of North Africa. I looked at the berber article and it says that berbers either originate from East Africa or possible the mid east. Either way none of these people are causcasian although many mid-eastern people have caucasoid chracteristics accoridng to Coon. Also Coons book which is used to define caucasoid article said that berbers were not caucasian. Wiki must be consistent in its defintions and can't have articles that contradict each other.

Coon is not the only authority and in fact is not in very good repute. If there are more than one widespread viewpoints and no consensus, Wikipedia is supposed to describe the major viewpoints, not assert just one.

It's not necessary to assert all North Africans are caucasian or not caucasian. There are not sharp boundaries between races. A lot of time is spent here debating boundary cases, but generally in actual usage, people just avoid using the caucasian / non-caucasian distinction when there are lots of people whose affiliation is unclear.--JWB 11:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The original inhabitants of North Africa (and the whole Sahara) ca. 50 000 years ago were E-people - or Neonegrids, as I call them. The dissicating desert divided them into sub-Saharan (E1, E2, E3a, E3b1) and North African/Near Eastern (E3b2, E3b3) groups. While the sub-Saharan lineages got upper hand over the majority of archaic paleonegroid groups and became a core of today's black Africans, the North African groups gradually mixed with Europids from Europe and the Near East and lost their phenotype. The invasion of Europids into North Africa started as early as 45-40 000 years ago (the Dabban culture) and from the mixture of North-West African men (E3b2) and Dabban women (U6), the core of today's Berbers came into being. The Neonegrid phenotype was gradually washed out by new Europid waves, so today's Berbers are ca. 80% Europid and 20% Sub-Saharan blacks. Centrum99 01:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

^I'm not sure about any barrier between the sub-sahara and supra-sahara, how do we know that these (E3b2, E3b3) groups aren't purely Near/Eastern, I mean, this is to imply that sub-saharans were blocked from migrating northward, but Near/Eastern people weren't blocked off from migrating inward? The Shara practically covers North Africa so I'm not understanding that really. Why is there suck a huge category for the Caucasoid group that can cover 3 continents, yet "Blacks" are only restricted to one part of Africa below the Sahara? And where's the evidence suggesting an Europid invasion into North Africa only a few thousand years after African dispersal from the continent?Taharqa 23:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The barrier is the Sahara Desert itself. Supposedly, when you get a geographic barrier such as a desert or mountain range, the difference between people on either side of the barrier may become more pronounced over time. This is because the barrier would be difficult to cross for prehistoric people, so little gene flow occurs between the two populations and genetic differences accumulate. If there's no such barrier between two regions, the difference will generally be less pronounced and more gradual as you move from one region to another, because people will have been continually mixing. So supposedly, the Sahara desert in Africa and the mountain ranges in Asia provided barriers which allowed people to develop relatively features which would be considered more Negroid, Caucasoid or Mongoloid. I'm not saying racial classifications are/aren't valid, but that's the reason why people stretching from India, Europe and North Africa often have similar facial features - there was no barrier to prevent gene flow. Holymolytree2 23:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The mysterious sic

The sic in

The concept of a "Caucasian race" or Varietas Caucasia (sic) was first proposed

is quite mysterious; it is not clear what is meant to be misspelled. I encountered a discussion of this issue at Talk:Caucasian#Regarding "common usage, especially in North America", which suggests nothing is incorrect here.--Imz 18:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Could the Latin be incorrect, or not following the standard used for classification names? ThePedanticPrick 16:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the part claiming africans to be white for three reason. 1.No source was provided of these claims. I know JWB says his dictionary says that but simple assertions are not enough. For all we know you could be reading a dictionary written by the kkk or black supremist group. 2. The sources provided with regards to coon claims opposite. 3. A dictionary that just says this person is this race simply isn't enough. A dictionary is not science and anyone who is literate can write one no matter how false its contents are. Dictionary's that are 50+ years old don't even recgonize native americans as humans so I have a problem with using a source that has so openly racist assertions. Also the dictionary claims that there are whites in North Africa can be taken in many ways. The way it was put in this article says that native north africans are white and no one has proven that berbers (native north africans) are white.

Claim is not that "africans are white" but that some people in at least far northern Africa are Caucasian rather than Negroid. This is a very minimal statement chosen to avoid controversy.

1. All sources agree at least this far.

2. As previously explained to you the Cavalli-Sforza 2D diagram (not Coon as you said) has a data point for Saharan Berbers much further south.

3. All scientific sources agree that some Berbers or North Africans have little or no Negroid mixture. There is debate over other North Africans. Please see the Berber article which goes over this in detail with recent scientific references.--JWB 22:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I do acknowledge that there are some caucasian people if you consider mid-east people to be caucasian in North Africa I don't agree that they are original inhabitants cause that is simply false. The North Africans today who are white are not natives and mostly came over when the Ottomans did and are descendents of them. First you claim Berbers are black then you claim they are white your source said they were so they are black. A book is used here from 1775 we would not use a book from 1775 in another scientific forum it is a joke and was written at a time when when blacks, indians, women, chinese were all by law property of white men and not people. It is coon website so stop trying to lie. Coons uses that percise diagram in his own book and thats why its there, so ys coon didn't make it but he certainly did use it in his book.

"All scientific sources agree that some Berbers or North Africans have little or no Negroid mixture" Not coons book or this website. Sure if all your scientific sources are coming from a time when people believed cutting your wrist let the "bad blood" that was making you sick out so you could feel better. How could a book written at a time when europeans were largely ignorant to the world even be used. Europeans didn't even have a map of the 40% of the populated world so how could already classify races by then? Anyways the berber article maintains that berbers came from east africa which are to my knowledge black for the most part. If you want to say whites live in North africa go ahead but they are not native there and according to genetics they are closets to negro followed by asian than any other race.

I got a used copy of Coon's "Living Races of Man" because discussions here keep referring to him. He does consider Berbers to be Caucasoid, page 84. He believes Caucasoids migrated to northwest Africa around 12000 BC, and the previous population was Capoid.

It is really odd for you to consider Coon an authority and other more recent and respected sources unscientific, considering Coon's reputation as a white racist, and Afrocentric criticism of his designation of some Cushitic and Nilotic peoples as Caucasoid and part Caucasoid.--JWB 18:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

None of the people including the ones from Europe have been proven caucasian all asertions. I only left in europe because that is where caucaus is and that is where causcasian come from.

The Caucasus is partly in Europe and partly in West Asia. --Gramaic 04:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You have not proven or given proof that they are white. Many of them look like negroid-caucasoid mixes or caucaoisd mongoloid mixes

You are an afrocentric nutbag. North Africans are approximately 80% Caucasoid and 20% Negroid. And, if people from Europe aren't "white" or "Caucasian," then what people are? JMac, go back to clown school, you daft afrohead! --Gerkinstock 29 November 2005

And you Gerkinstock - what about this silliness in Coon's work describing people in Sudan, Ethiopia, and RWANDA as extensions of Caucasoid racial types. The original inhabitents of North Africa were not "Capoid", the reason Coon put that there, was because at the time, "Capoid" was viewed as "less Black" than the "Negroid" people, and there was no way in 1930 that Coon could call Mediterranean people a "mixture of Negroid and Caucasoid" without finding himself the object of rejection in the "scientific" community of his day (or maybe he himself didn't want to humiliate his white countrymen by saying they ARE in fact mixed with Negroid characteristics). North africans are approximately 80% Caucasoid NOW... after generations of Arabization and what not, surely we all agree that the colonization of North Africa since Islam has made the region LIGHTER than it was before.... after all ARABS living in North Africa were originally inhabitents of ARABIA... NOT North Africa. --68.60.55.162 10:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)ZAPH

Even Coon only says there has been some Caucasoid admixture in those areas of East Africa, not that people there should be classified as Caucasoid. Nobody has been advocating putting these assertions in the article anyway. If you prefer to have the article list all viewpoints even if controversial or not generally accepted today, they can be added.

Coon also explicitly mentions a small degree of Negroid admixture in the Mediterranean. This is in line with both other older anthropologists and with modern genetic studies.

Arabic-speaking N. Africans are mostly descended from Berbers, with some additional input from east, north, and south. The last 1000 years did have an Arab migration, as well as importation of slaves from both sub-Saharan Africa and Europe. But not everyone speaking Arabic is descended from the original Arabs, any more than everyone speaking English is descended from the English. The original Islamic conquest was by a relatively very small army. The Banu Hilal migration of Bedouin probably had more of an effect on the N. African population, but not enough for major lightening.

Coon and more recent scientists do think N. Africa became more Caucasoid by migration, but on a scale more like 10000 years than 1000.--JWB 14:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is absolutely true that modern North Africans are mostly descended from ancient North Africans. That most have Arab surnames is no more relevant than most Iraqis having Arabic surnames, or most Amerindians in Central and South America having Spanish surnames. The change from Berberism to Arabism in North Africa was a cultural change, not a genetic one. In addition, Mediterranean Europeans have negligible non-European ancestry on the whole.--Gerkinstock 1 December 2005

JMac, I apologize for the name-calling I engaged in earlier today, though your edits are not remotely consistent with modern anthropological and genetic POV.-- Gerkinstock 3 December 2005

In short, about 25 000 years ago, the Saharan desert was inhabited by an old human race for which I prefer a term "Neonegrid". This race is sparsely archeologically documented because of the sand cover in that region, yet it emerges very markedly in genetic studies. Neonegrids probably posessed some "Europid" features and may have looked like modern Somalis. Men of these people bore Y-haplogroup E and women mtDNA haplogroup L3. When the Sahara began to dissicate 25 000 years ago, these people moved away, and a group of them bearing Y-haplogroup subclade E3b mixed with Europid women somewhere in the north-east of Africa. Subsequently they occupied the Atlas Mountains. From this mixture, the core of today's Berbers came into being. Centrum99 01:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Singapore: Caucasian = White

Well, first time I encountered the term "Caucasian" was when travelling to the US - but only in Singapore it started to mean anything...

Singapore officially uses the CMIO scheme, i.e. you are either Chinese, Malay, Indian or other... Whilst I disapprove of the concept and fail to understand the importance of "race" in a modern society you can't avoid the term "Caucasian" living here.

The term "Caucasian" is used as equivalent to "whites" - and it does not include Asians (i.e. also Japanese or Indian people are NOT considered Caucasian) in certainly includes fair skinned Anglo-Saxons from all parts of the world plus Western Europe and Scandinavia however besides this narrow group the line doesnt seem clear to me you would also find terms such as "Hispanic", "Latino", "Middle Eastern" and so forth.

MB 18/01/06

The terms Hispanic, Latino, Semite and Middle Eastern do not describe a race but people's cultural or linguistic background. Latinos/hispanic for example could be black (African), white(Caucasian) or Indian (Amerindian), but they have in commmon that they speak the same language--tequendamia 01:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

well, tell that the goverment of singapore... MB 19/01/06

It doesn't matter, when Asians see a white latino they wouldn't know what country he/she is from until the person itself tells it. If you tell them you are Latino, they may wonder why you don't look like Ricky Martin or Antonio Banderas as that's they idea they have about latinos. The same happens in the west with Asians, we cannot differentiate at first sight between someone from Singapore, Beijing or a Tokyo. That difference could be relevant to the them, but not much to us. On the other hand very few cultures are so race conscious. Not all caucasians worry about race, only in certain countries such as the English speaking nations which see themselves threatened by the nations they once colonized.--tequendamia 22:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Skin Color is not a primary signifier of race

Physical features are Digitalseal 22:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Causian does include Indians from India look at the features and hair not the colour

So, stop passing off as White and face up to the facts.

The only person promoting the "one-drop rule" (which never applied to genetics or anthropological taxonomy) is YOU. Stop with this nonsense and face up to the fact that YOU are the one-drop rule quantifier at this site, not a select group of white people who died decades if not a century or more ago. -- Gerkinstock 00:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact I do not promote the one-drop rule. I just want to question the views that some or maybe many people have on race, probably in a way that is a bit too belligerent. But it is OK if it makes people think.

Seriously race views in the inner city American ghetto are where they were in 1920s Virginia just from the opposite side of the race fence. I always hear people say "is she mixed, or mulatto" etc. around here, and I always read about this one-drop rule which I'm sure for a very long time most white people believed in, but they died or are in a nursing home or are holed up with their arsenal in a cabin in Montana, but the average white person wouldn't know what you were talking about because the average white person knows they are "mixed" somewhere in there. In no way am I saying there is no racism I'm just saying its based far more on economics and culture than the old school pseudo-science. I'm sure it even sounds racist what I just said, but I don't know any other way to explain it without generalizing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Novaterata (talk • contribs) 00:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

This is a clear contradiction to "political correctness" in society. If you use the term "negro" or "black", you are considered racist against the African race. If you use "yellow" to describe the Asian race, once again, you are a racist. Though these are stereotypical examples, applying the terms "white people" and the "Caucasian race" would be a contradiction to the arguments made by other races. Hopefully my point was expressed without anyone being offended. (I always try to make this point whenever I can when a form always says, "Check what applies to you.") -Zarti 23:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_%28people%29"

What is "the African race" and what is "the Asian race"? These are both incorrect terms and if you're going to discuss the topic then you should use the terms Mongoloid and Negroid. Actually it annoys me when people use the word Asian to mean Mongoloid, because I'm half Iranian and therefore half Asian. Holymolytree2 22:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

... arbitrary ... gerrymandering ... huh?

I have reverted the following:

Racial classifications have begun to take on the appearance of being arbitrary, based on the politics of the time. Were "Caucasians" actually classified with as much detail as other racial groups, it would be seen that many of these new groups, in fact, are minority groups. For example, the term African-American uses a geographical location of ancestors' origins and current nationality status to describe what is commonly referred to as a "race". If this type of classification is done for those that are currently labelled "Caucasian", the result would be hundreds of "races", each of which was a minority by itself. Thus, it is evident that the creation of "racial" categories in today's society is nothing more than a form of gerrymandering, enabling certain categories to gain "minority" status and with it, special privileges.

which was used to replace:

Some have argued that due to the civil-rights and political-correctness movements, many white people feel a certain guilt or shame when acknowledging their race in a positive manner. However, this shame or guilt can more closely be tied to the overbearing violent, and white supremacist ideologies and realities that white people have laden at the feet and on the backs of people of color globally.

While I do not have the correct terms from logic, the editor is definitely mixing arguments and/or definitions. To say that African-American is an invalid term as related to racial grouping, because we don't say that Irish-Swedish-Michigan-Americans is a valid racial grouping is, what is the word, specious?

Perhaps I am confused enough by the statements, that I am not seeing the argument? Is the editor actually proposing that African-American is seen as a separate 'race'? It all just seems like a side-slipped argument against any special circumstances (like historical events?)

Shenme 10:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Indians as `Caucasians'

Although the orthodoxy states that South Asians are classed as Caucasians/Caucasoid, the truth is that Caucasoid elements in South Asia are in a minority. Most South Asians north of the Tropic of Cancer are more or less Caucasoid, but intermingling with proto-Australoid, Dravdian and Mongoloid races have now led many anthropologists to categorise South Asians as a race unto themselves. Similar can be applied to Arabs who on the Arabian peninsular and in North Africa who are generally classed as Caucasian but are mixed with Negro blood, and the various Central/West Asians who are often mixed with Mongoloid ancestry.

No actually South Indians are classified as Caucasion as well. Theo only difference is skin color (being closer to the equator). 97% of all Indians (both North and South) belong to a caucasoid race of the mediterranean sub-branch. There are some Mongoloids populations in the Northeast and Negroids in the Southwest of India, but they make up less than 3% of the people. Contrary to some popular belief Dravidians are Caucasions (making up the majority of South India). Although South Indians (like dravidians) have some australoid blood within them, Caucasion features are more dominate. Zachorious 03:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This debate only shows that race is a social construction. I suppose there are many views on race because it is all a social construction. A minority of people view Indians as Caucasian while most do not view them as such. Some people even view Middle Easterns as Caucasians. Southern Europeans and Spaniards are viewed as Caucasian today, even though they are mixed with the Middle Easterns due to Moorish and other changes in power. The social construction perspective is widely affirmed today by experts, so the fact that Southern Europeans are a Caucasian/Middle Eastern mix does not stop us from considering them to be full Caucasians. This is all explained here: white people or white people (different hosts needed to verify accuracy of transcription by corroboration)--^DarkTea 05:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The only difference that many Turks, Iranians, Arabs and Indians have with Europeans is their religion. If Khomenei was a Christian he would be viewed as being white. Samething with Zidane. Charles Azanvour who is of armenian heritage is of course viewed as being white because Armenia is a Christian nation in an area near central asia. But if he was Azeri I doubt that he would be referred as being white.

No scientific foundation

Some of those "race"-articels was deleted in the german WP long ago, cause there is no scientific base for this classifications. [2] Historical and social meaning of this item in USA and other countries is different, thus u should keep the artictle here, but the unscientific charakter must be clear - clearer than now. -- 84.178.135.205 18:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC) sorry for my bad germish :-)

Please, don't meddle into things that you know nothing about! And don't cite "authorities" that are as open-minded as medieval jezuits. The main reason, why the existence of race is denied, is because marked racial differences ruined leftist social engineering of the "multicultural society". Thus, the only hope, how these social utopians can save their chimerical societies, is to deny the very existence of race. Yet, as we know, the existence of race is not denied, when unsuccessful minorities in Western countries can benefit from it! Yahoo Man, 28. September 2006

Wow, you should maybe actually read the arguments for why race isn't accepted as a "scientific" concept, before you try and blame it on leftist "social-engineering". The arguments are purely genetic/evolutionary. Adress the arguments (which havn't really exposited here), don't just dismiss them because of your assumptions about the arguer's intentions. It makes you look like a ignorant Yahoo. Brentt 01:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

My big advantage is that I read much more than only "arguments for why race isn't accepted as a "scientific" concept". Hence I can make my own opinion about it and I don't need to be indoctrinated by any PC multi-culti left-wing goop from the United States or from anywhere where the beautiful multiracial states flourish. Yahooman/Centrum99 01:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Anthropology

Regarding this:

In anthropology, the later and more technical term Caucasoid race was defined by anthropometric criteria.

Most anthropologists wouldn't determine "race" by anthropometric criteria. It would be useless and generally considered pseudoscientific these days. Anthropology as a whole does not generally accept this method of determining "race" (most anthropologists don't even use the term "race" anymore and it is generally frowned upon.) I'm removing the material until it can be attributed to specific anthropologists. This is well within wikipedia policy as it is a statment with suspect veracity--so please do not add it back until it is cited, and attributed to a source. Brentt 00:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I notice this article doesn't mention any modern theories as to what the actual origins of the "white"/european race may be. Seems like a pretty glaring omission.Awinkle 18:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that instead of empty twaddle, we should already start working on it. The key to this problem are "Y-(macro)haplogroup F" and "mtDNA (macro)haplogroup N". These branches make up a clearly distinctive, isolated paternal and maternal lineages in the human genealogy. The "man F" and "woman N" lived somewhere in the Near East (most probably in the Levant) about 50 000 years ago. The folk to which they gave birth is closely tied with the so-called "Ahmarian industry", an archeological culture that ocuppied the Near East at that time. Ca. 45 000 years ago, during a very warm interstadial, these people were so numerous (and probably also adventurous) that they expanded to Africa, Europe and Asia. The least mixed descendants of man F+woman N, i.e. people with the "cleanest" distribution of F and N haplogroups are grouped into the "Caucasoid/Europoid race" by traditional anthropology. This is especially valid in the case of Europeans, who mostly have only F and N lineages, and in Near Easterners, whose haplogroups also predominantly come from these roots. This means that as early as 45 000 years ago, the "europoid" phenotype must have been quite distinct and stabilized.

Some other "Europoid" groups don't have such a "clean" haplogroups and mixed with local races. Their Europoid origin can be better illustrated by autosomal genes, because haplogroups can cover the real phenotype. For example, in Berbers from North Africa, male haplogroups coming from F-macrohaplogroup are sparse, yet these people have a majority of female N-haplogroups. According to autosomal studies, Berbers are 80% Europoid and 20% Negroid. The predominance of Negroid male haplogroups (E3b1, E3b2) must be understood as a result of genetic drift that hadn't huge influence on the phenotype.

The opposite situation exists in India: Here the paternal lineages of archaic Veddoids (C) were almost "deleted" by repeated invasions of Europoids from the West and North, who took local women belonging to mtDNA haplogroup M. Now we here have several Europoid male haplogroups (H, L, J2, R1a1, R2), but the maternal profile of Indians is quite uniform and consists of non-Europoid mtDNA haplogroup M. The percentage of Europoid admixture correlates with social stratification: the descendants of the oldest Europoid invaders (H) have the highest percentage of Veddoid ancestry and belong to the lowest castes; on the other hand, the Veddoid phenotype dissolved with each new Europoid wave, so the highest castes in India may look quite European.

The fate of other Europoid groups was very interesting, because they got so far that their phenotype largely disappeared due to mixing with surrounding races: Hence we can detect male (and also female) Europoid lineages in New Guineans and Aboriginal Australians (M), Siberian and East Asian Mongoloids (N,O), and, of course, among American Indians (Q). American Indians look by far most Europoid, which is also obvious from their haplogroups: unlike N and O Europoids, they didn't take so many (Paleo)mongoloid women during their way through Southern Siberia. Centrum99 01:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Article is bias

This is a poor way to start the article this section should be done away with.

"The term Caucasian race is sometimes used to refer to people whose ancestry can be traced back to Europe, parts of North Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, Russia, and in certain areas of Central Asia.[2]" Caucasian race??? Also why is North Africa being thrown in with people from the Caucasian Alps area?

According to archeology and genetics these people came from Africa any way.

--Margrave1206 03:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, EVERYONE came from Africa so thats kind of moot. The problem with the article is simply the problem with race, its a really ill defined thing, so the article is lacking in the same way the concept is. Its remediable but I doubt its going to happen anytime soon. Brentt 03:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

what???

The following quoted statement is strange, untrue, and racist:

"caucasian variety - I have taken the name of this variety from Mount Caucasus, both because its neighbourhood, and especially its southern slope, produces the most beautiful race of men, I mean the Georgian; and because all physiological reasons converge to this, that in that region, if anywhere, it seems we ought with the greatest probability to place the autochthones(birth place) of mankind."

The placement of this statement near the beginning of the article, or anywhere for that matter, is a slick, yet nescient, attempt by a racist white editor to elevate 'caucasians' over others. Quotations such as these should not be included in such a commonly searched article unless the editor wants to attach a subtopic explaining how this 'scientist's' views could be viewed as racist by non-whites. Panda —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.24.41.126 (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't want to sound like I'm defending the article here, the article as a whole is pretty bad. But I think that quote highlights a very important issue concerning the history of the word--i.e. it's origins in racist thinking. Its a little known fact about the term that that "scientist" is, I think, the person who the modern usage of the word can be traced back to. Don't you think that its a pretty important piece of information that the word can be traced back to white-supremacist thinking? I actually first read about that quote, and the history of the word, in a anti-racist textbook called Unthinking Eurocentrism. I think its pretty important to note that the word has that history.

The quote should be in the article in an appropriate context because its of historical interest concerning the etymology of the word. Of course it should be made clear from context, if not specifically indicated, that not-even the most backwards anthropologist today would consider it to be good science. Brentt 21:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Attention again

Huxley's Observation Thomas Huxley said, "Melanochroi are the result of an intermixture between the Xanthochroi and the Australioids." in 1870.[3] User:Veritas et Severitas has been trying to remove it. I do not understand why User:Veritas et Severitas has been trying to remove a correctly cited and verified Huxley statement.Huxley's insightful theory is further corroborated by modern anthropologists here: white people or white people (different hosts needed to verify accuracy of transcription by corroboration) Of course, Arthur Kemp hypothesises admixture from the Middle East rather than indigenous Australians, making Huxley's theory somewhat outdated.--^DarkTea 05:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

---

This user should be banned once and for all. He continues to make use of White Supremacist-Nordicist sites for his propaganda. When will someone stop this guy.

What Huxley really said:

"Racial classification system In On the Methods and Results of Ethnology (1865), Huxley defined the Ulotrichi race to be one of two macroraces. This macrorace contained the Bushmen, Negrito, Negroes and Mincopies. The other, the Leiotrichi, contained the Amphinesians, Americans, Melanochroi, Xanthochroi, Australians, Esquimaux and Mongolians.

Huxley defined the Mincopies to be the indigenous peoples of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

The Xanthochroi were defined to be the indigenous peoples from the Rhine east to the Yenisei and from the Urals south to the Hindu Kush. Included were the Scandinavians, Germans, Slavonians and Finns. Also included were some of the Greeks, Turks, Kirghiz, Mantchous, Ossetes, Siahposh and Rohillas. He described them as having fair skin, yellow or red hair, blue eyes and long or broad heads. Huxley's concept was influential in the development of the theory of the Nordic race.

The Melanochroi were defined as the indigenous peoples of Southern Europe, the Middle East, Southwest Asia and North Africa. Huxley described this region as having a Y shape. He included in this category some of the British, Gauls, Spanish, Italians, Greeks, Syrians, Arabs and Persians, as well as the Celts, Iberians, Etruscans, Romans, Pelasgians, Berbers, Saharans, North Africans and Semites. He described them as having pale skin and wavy hair, with abundant beards, black hair, long heads and dark eyes."

Then he speaks about dark Melanochroi, which are not the people he mentioned above.

Are you citing the Wikipedia Thomas Huxley article? Your argument has no credibility if it relies on citing the Wikpedia article that Wikipedians made. The actual source document says, "Melanochroi are the result of an intermixture between the Xanthochroi and the Australioids."--.--^DarkTea 09:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Now look at Dark version and his constant misinterpretations and his obsessions:

"Another 19th century anthropologist, Thomas Huxley, considered the scope of Caucasian to be inaccurate and "absurd", claiming darker Caucasians such as Southern Europeans & Middle Easterns were actually hybrids of light-skinned Northern European Caucasians and indigenous dark-skinned Australians."

But what is more important. From a 19th century theory that is today outdated and ridiculous he tries to make it insightful, constantly naming the fascist white supremacist site Stormfront: For those who are not familiar with these people see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_%28website%29, 

Or the fascist white supremacist-Nordicist propagandist Arthur Kemp and March of the Titans I need say no more. I hope you can draw your own conclusions about this guy once and for all. I say it again an RFC should be open about this guy and ban him for good. He is not a good will contributor, just a white supremacist-Nordicist propagandist in Wiki.

I find it awkward to have to explain this, but what is Dark T. constant agenda: The same as the sites above, which is:

1. They proclaim the superiority of the Nordic race.

2. They encounter a problem for their theory when they find that most ancient civilizations were in the Mediterranean basin, not in their Nordic lands.

3. They solve the problem, saying:

a) If fact all those civilizations were Nordic.

b) Then Non-Whites invaded and mixed with the Nordics, the result being the current population of the Mediterrean.

c) That fact brought about the end of those civilizations.

e) That is going to happen again in white countries.

Another variety is that those "Mediterraneans" just disappeared by miscegenetion, but not Nordics, thus also solving the problem of having to deal with a "race" that makes their claims look embarrassing, in their minds.

I hope that people can begin to see the light now. But you can read yourselves the sites that Dark T. constantly introduces and proposes as "insightful". Veritas et Severitas 17:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Citing white-supremacist apologias as "reliable" sources pretty much makes every edit you make suspect Dark Tea. I'm with Veritas on this one. Brentt 18:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Huxley's quote cites Clark University. And next time, comply with WP:NPA Lukas19 21:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Stormfront is considered a hate group site, an extremely racist site, a white supremacist site and a Nordicist propaganda site and a Nazi site. Anyone who constantly introduces it in several pages in Wiki can legitimately be called any of those terms, and those who defend them highly suspicious of the same ideology. POV pushing is always bad for Wiki, when it is that kind of POV pushing it is a disaster. Veritas et Severitas 01:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If you make one personal attack whatsoever, I'll be filing an WP:arbitration case. Lukas19 01:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see how admins react to situation where one side are making imagined personal attacks (except the one by me that was immediately changed by myself) and the other side is citing white-supremacist literature as reliable sources on a subject.

The only legitimate uses of stormfront or March of the Titans as sources would be in articles or sections about white-supremacist views. Or, perhaps in a section about minority views in this article. Because in fact, the white supremacist stance is an extreme minority view and even one sentence given to that view is stretching due weight. I don't think any admin in their right mind would say any different. Your trying to give undue weight to an extreme minority POV, and thats not going to go over well with anyone who doesn't share that POV, including most admins I'm sure. Nobody has made a personal attack, EXCEPT me, and again, that was immediatley changed by myself out of respect for wikipedia policy. Brentt 21:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Stormfront is considered a hate group site, an extremely racist site, a white supremacist site and a Nordicist propaganda site and a Nazi site. Anyone who constantly introduces it in several pages in Wiki can legitimately be called any of those terms, and those who defend them highly suspicious of the same ideology. POV pushing is always bad for Wiki, when it is that kind of POV pushing it is a disaster. Veritas et Severitas 01:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What I would like is a rationale explaining why the Thomas Huxley quote makes the article on Caucasian race a better article, I do not see why it does. If such a rationale can be given I cannot object to a properly sourced inclusion of the paragraph. However I do not consider stormfront.org or associated sites as a reliable source on unbiased information about racial theory. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

An exposition of the history of this "racial" term is relevant to the article and shows that race is a social construction. Blumenbach had his definition, Huxley had his definition and Coon had his definition. These different definitions show the malleability of the race concept, countering the hardline view that race is a natural phenonmenon and not a human construction. --^DarkTea 13:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that rationale but I still don't think that justifies the inlcusion of the quote. Huxley does not, at least in that quote I don't know if he does elsewhere, use the word "caucasian" thus the quote does not explicitly illuminate the topic of the article. I think that your point is valid and that it could be made better by actually stating in the text that varying definitions of the term caucasian has been given paraphrasing the views of Blumenbach, Huxley and Coon (referenced in footnotes of course)without necessarily quoting them. Quotes should be used sparingly and only when the quote says it better than it can be done by a paraphrasing of its centrral claims - this is not such a case IMO - since the quote alludes to huxley ideas of a specific relation between races none of which he call caucasian.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Huxley said, "It is to the Xanthochroi and Melanochroi, taken together, that the absurd denomination of "Caucasian" is usually applied."--^DarkTea 13:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That could be better explained by saying that Huxley denied the legitimacy of the term "Caucasian" preferring to divide it into "xanthochroi" and "melanochroi".·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion, have your say

this page has been nominated for deletion by me. i think its time that we actually have a Keep or delete vote ove rthis sort of pages. and im proud over it.--Matrix17 19:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• No. The page contains much more information than bias. As a medicine student I encounter the word caucasian frequently. In medicine it's sometimes important to distinguish between divisions of humankinds in order to give the right diagnosis. The article is helpful, and it should stay. Mortsggah 06:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you set of an AfD page, and complete the AfD nomination process?

Actually, I would like the article to be rewritten without the heavy focus on pseudoscience unless its more clearly a historical account of pseudoscientific beliefs about race, and hope someone comes along and rewrites doing a better job, thats not how things are supposed to get done. I'm hoping someone just does a complete rewrite. I think its something an article that has the potential to be a good article, and definitely a term which is widely used so does indeed need an article. So I would, reluctantly, vote no. Reluctantly because there is so much weight given to the pseudoscientific historical beliefs without those beliefs being clearly demarcated as historical. Brentt 19:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Caucasians = European-looking peoples

So then, I think the term Caucasian then should be considered to include only people who resemble Whites other than the Whites themselves - such as the some Arabs (from Syria, Lebanon, Palestine etc.), European-looking Jews, Turkish, Kalash and some Pashtun peoples. The term should have excluded the Dravidian Indians because they don't resemble the Whites at all.

your wrong, to be caucasoid you dont have to have a certain skin pigmentation, caucasoid merley refers to metrically measured skull shape and facial structure. Most ethiopians are caucasoids despite the fact they have black skin. You cant just use your own opinion, see the map in the article, it includes all middle easterners, north africans and some east africans and indians.--71.235.94.254 05:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. Ethiopians do not have 'black' skin, they have light-brown skin. You need your eyes examined. Indians are black on a whole and this term is BS and is just used in the numbers game of white supremacy. Whites truly do not want to add up the numbers of black peoples because it will truly outnumber theirs, so they minimize them by taking some black peoples out of the black catagory and putting them into a white catagory.--71.235.94.254 05:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Facial features only tell part of the story while skin color and hair texture tells the other parts. Whites are slick because they use facial features to define 'caucasians,' but yet dismiss so-called negroid or mongoloid features that may be present on the same individual. Many so-called caucasoids could equally be nergoids or mongoloids also. By that I mean that they could be made exclusive in either group.--71.235.94.254 05:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to white people(I know, the so-called difference between white and caucasoid. WHite specifies white Europeans and caucaoid is simply to claim others for whites), there is a more or less clear range that they use for Europe. Others who would not be white, but European are claimed via this caucasoid term. This is how certain Africans and Asians are claimed as well. If you look, you will notice that those who are called caucasoid are either peoples in countries that did something great in world history and mingled or are near whites. It is pretty clear how this is going. These same groups of mualttoes (in the case of North Africa and the so-called middle-east), could easlit be classified as negroid, but of course no whites like to use that term, instead they use negro meaning 'pure.' In fact, have you ever heard anyone described as negroid even IN Africa? The skin IS the identifier for whites, but somehow it is not one for blacks. All of a sudden when people are black, they have to be broken down and no longer black, but white. Whites (the racists) must do this in order to inflate their numbers and to minimize the black and Asian numbers.--71.235.94.254 05:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

How come white or caucasoid can look like anyone but negoid must only look like 'certain' Africans(those who did not come into contact with Europeans or Asians in ancient times)? How come American mulattoes are not causcasoid? How come they are negroid? How come negroid (see, I used it) Europeans are still caucasoid even though their faces are not European, but they may or may not have white skin? How come mongoloid Indians still caucasoid? How come clear negro and negroid Arabs called caucasoid? How come Ancient Egyptians are called caucasoid when everything about them was 'negroid?' How come African-Americans are passed off as the purist of blacks even though many are either half white or white-skinned? How come Italian-AMericans with clear African features(hair, skin, lips and/or nose) put into a white catagory if facial features plays a role? The answers to these questions and more is that we have been lied to. These racial classifications are BS and only designed to benefit the remains of the European colonizers of today. Whites need the numbers. When people read books, they also have to have the perception that whenever they see the word caucasoid, white people are assumed. Similarly, when you read and you only see the word negro or (if you ever do see it) negroid, it is only applied to a few countries. Doing this keeps the perception that black people hardly exist and that whites are practically most people on earth! There is a science to everything - including racism and white supremacy.--71.235.94.254 05:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that Wikipedia's problem is that it must rely on published sources. In terms of the race-related articles, this poses a problem of appeal to tradition. The published sources for race will not define racial groups if they are recent, so there won't be updates in racial thought. The published sources prior to the 20th century are regarded as false because they're old. As a result, the racial articles are trapped in the 1900-1950 typological races. The numerous people who disagree that Euros and Middle Easterns are the same race can't actually find sources to support their POV. Consequently, this article unduly reflects the POV held by one camp.----^DarkTea 12:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Is it just me, or is the picture of the girl too informal? It doesn't strike me as very encyclopedic. The Behnam 18:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the girl is from the Caucasus, so I don't see any problems with it. SosoMK 09:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

In case you didn't actually read what I wrote above, I never doubted that she was from Caucasus. I was concerned that the informality of the picture may not be encyclopedic. She appears to be in the middle of laughing or clearing her throat, or something like that. Is it possible to get a more formal picture of someone from the Caucasus? Or are they all like that, all of the time? I don't think so. I don't know what went into choosing that picture out of all pictures of people of the Caucasus. I don't even mind if you use a picture of the same person. I just want a picture that looks more formal because the article will look better.

BTW, the picture is not even appropriate at this article, which is about the concept of the "Caucasian race," not "Peoples of the Caucasus," where the picture is the more appropriate. It illustrates nothing about the concept of the "Caucasian race," which is quite different from "Peoples of the Caucasus." Please keep it at the appropriate article.

Also, the Kalash girl has no grounds for inclusion here (without committing OR or relying upon fringe). I have seen a white supremacist site that claims that that particular picture demonstrates Caucasian features, which they pretend is a leftover from Greek invasions. In fact I think that a previous caption said this very same thing.

Unless there are further objections I will remove both pictures for content-related reasons. The article was better without such pictures anyway. The Behnam 18:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Why would "formality" be any kind of criterion? If anything, a natural picture seems better.

The Georgian girl is Caucasian in both senses (although this is left to the reader's judgement rather than stated) and this is a valid and notable point, especially considering the Nell Irwin Painter reference that traces the "Caucasian" race concept to Orientalist fantasies about the beauty of slaves from the Caucasus. Have you read this paper yet? If you do not dispute the paper and its inclusion as a reference, you should not dispute the picture.

This article does not contain a claim that the Kalash are descended from Alexander's army, though the Kalash article itself discusses the claim and attributes it to the Kalash themselves, while also explaining the evidence against it. --JWB 22:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

In case you didn't actually read the article, the term Caucasian race comes from the idea that the Caucasus is the birthplace of human civilization and the picture is totally encyclopedic. So, chill out and try to do something more productive. SosoMK 17:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The Usual Politically Correct Hypocrisy

Go look at the black race article and see if you can find this quote:

Sarah A Tishkoff and Kenneth K Kidd state, "Despite disagreement among anthropologists, this classification remains in use by many researchers, as well as lay people."[13] According to Leonard Lieberman, Rodney C. Kirk, and Alice Littlefield, the concept of race has all but been completely rejected by modern mainstream anthropology.[14]

Every other race is real, except caucasians or "whites". So let's just jump in the melting pot...

Right. Thanks. Gotcha'

Yeah, just delete the article. I'd rather it not even exist than be this blatantly politically motivated. And oh yeah, if you do decide to rewrite it, get some better sources:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1362319/posts http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4275695.stm http://threehegemons.tripod.com/thre...log/id139.html http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-bai042505.php http://www.ajc.com/health/content/he...8genetics.html http://www.cmh.pitt.edu/newsrace.htm http://www.emedicine.com/DERM/topic221.htm http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/...pages/race.htm http://medstat.med.utah.edu/kw/osteo...sics/race.html http://redcrossgulfcoast.org/faq.htm http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/810321/posts http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-an...?msg_id=005pWH http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backis...0/deedric1.htm http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org...cConstruct.pdf http://www.goodrumj.com/Edwards.pdf http://www.pioneerfund.org/Weyher_pdf.pdf http://www.jonentine.com/skeptic/sarich.htm http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...7/ED263680.DTL http://www.policyreview.org/DEC01/satel.html http://jacksonville.com/login.shtml?...t_6870358.html http://www.ncpa.org/iss/hea/2002/pd073002a.html http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6705 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html http://www.fda.gov/cder/reports/race...ity_report.htm http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-psf051005.php http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theed...shton/Race.htm http://www.racesci.org/in_media/genetic_markers.htm http://www.racesci.org/in_media/nyt_dec2002_palette.htm http://www.racesci.org/in_media/dna_...ess_blacks.htm http://www.racesci.org/in_media/genome_bwg.htm http://www.bloodbook.com/world-abo.html http://mednews.stanford.edu/releases...acial-data.htm http://run-down.com/guests/je_black_athletes_p1.php http://query.nytimes.com/gst/health/...54C0A9629C8B63 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=19640 http://www.world-science.net/exclusi...28_racefrm.htm http://www.world-science.net/exclusi...28_racefrm.htm http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10113382/site/newsweek/

--Ιουστινιανός 23:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Only PC left-wing liberal wankers feel that there is no such thing as "race". To claim such a thing one must surely be blind. For the diversity of humanity is what makes everyone unique and deepens all our cultures.

As for Caucasian race: if one wants to be correct, it should only refer to White european descended people. Arabs, Egyptians, Indians, Semites, some Siciallians and Spaniards etc are NOT caucasians. AS someone already pointed out clearly , they are mixed with Africans, Mongoloids, Australoids, etc.

It matters not if some Indians have similar brachial indices as whites, that is only one parameter out of many that need to be considered.

Our 3-tiered classification (Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid, + Australoid) needs to be expanded and re-defined.

In 1934, Carleton S. Coon redefined Caucasian race as Caucasoid race based on typology. [16]

This statement is inaccurate on several counts.

• Cited source says 1962 - no idea where 1934 comes from.
• Source does not say Coon coined the word Caucasoid.
• Source does not say Caucasoid is equivalent to Caucasian, just that Coon's 5-race model was a refinement of earlier ones.

--JWB 08:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This article WILL be changed

This article needs to be drastically changed. This is NOT because i beleive that race does not exist. To claim such a thing, one must be both blind and in denial.

I am sick of wanting to LEARN about the different people of the earth, but end up reading non sense. An article about, eg Caucasians, should focus on origins, characeristics and history, etc. Instead this article goes on and on about definitions and limitations of terminology, and what caucasian means in brazil vs australia.

Yes there are limitations to classifying people according to race. This should be mentioned, but the article should continue, not keep drumming on about it. And i do not think that have races promotes racism, in fact if anything it will accelerate tolerance.

No offence to the original author, but it needs to be written by a real anthropologist, not a left-wing liberal arts pussy

And finally, it should not include much on the Caucasian countries (ie people from the caucasus). This article is about the Caucasian race. Anyone who is not a cretin knows (roughly) what caucasian refers to. Hxseeker 15:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Funkynusayri 15:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What appears to be a clear defition to you Hxseeker is disputed as a whole. The article needs differing points of view for WP:NPOV.----^DarkTea 00:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I agree with Hxseeker. I know that the word "Caucasian" can be used to refer to someone from the Caucasus mountains, but I've lived in both England and Australia, and we get enough American TV and movies in these countries to know what Americans mean by the term, and I've NEVER heard it used in that context except in dictionary and encyclopedia definitions. Some of the contributors to this article seem to have forgotten that this is the ENGLISH LANGUAGE version of Wikipedia. The meaning of the term "Caucasian" in countries like Russia or Brazil has little relevance to it's meaning in the ENGLISH LANGUAGE. The use of the word to mean someone from the Caucasus could be mentioned in ONE SENTENCE. The article should talk about the term as a racial definition, considering that's what everyone who uses the term means. Instead, we get a load of waffle about alternate usage, etc, and end up with an article with almost no useful content.

What the hell is this article talking about Jason and the Argonauts for? And who said the term Caucasian is likely to refer to people from the Caucasus in the UK? I'm English, and I've never heard it. Holymolytree2 23:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Caucasian in itself refers to people of the Caucasus, Caucasian race/Caucasoid doesn't, and that's what this article is about, I'm not sure what part you're complaining about, but I agree if it's the last point. Funkynusayri 23:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The older version had more waffle in it (like different meanings in different countries), and I didn't check properly before I wrote this comment, but it still does have a bit of garbage, like the Jason and the Argonauts bit. Holymolytree2 15:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

India

can you please use the talkpage for your "Indian" debate. It is perfectly unclear what the image of the Rajasthani woman is doing here. The article only has

Before [1923], U.S. judiciary judgements classified Indians as "White" in five cases, "not White" in two cases, and "probably not White" in one case.

there is nothing to indicate that this particular Rajasthani woman would have been classified as "Caucasian" even before 1923. If the article is missing information, do add it. From the ethnographic map, it is clear that Indian population was considered a mix between "Aryans" and Dravidians, and the lighter skinned people from the northern regions may have been classified as "Caucasian" at some point, due to their admixture of Central Asian ancestry. Nowhere, however, is it stated that the entire Indian subcontinent was included in "Caucasian". To the contrary, the 1890 map shows a green "Dravidian" blob in Rajasthan, apparently precisely to account for the dark skinned Rajasthani population. dab (𒁳) 16:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I told User:Deeptrivia that the map shows that India is full of Dravidian/Caucasian mixed population, but s/he said that the map appears to say that Dravidians and Caucasians live together in segregated coexistence. User:Deeptrivia later conceeded that India's population is mixed, but s/he argued that people with partial Caucasian ancestry are also Caucasian. As a result, s/he felt the Dravidian woman should be in this article because of her possible Caucasian lineage. I don't feel that the black Indian woman picture should not be in this article, because it doesn't serve to illustrate the concept.----^DarkTea 19:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

it should be understood that this is not about "facts about the Caucasian race", but all about "facts about historical notions of a 'Caucasian race'". If historically, some definition exists that summarily included all of India (which I doubt, since the Dravidians were associated with Africans from the beginning), that should be mentioned. It's all a question of citing sources first, and adding illustrative images later. dab (𒁳) 19:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Most definitions of the term, including definition one in the opening statement of this very article, have nothing to do with white skin, and specifically include most people of South Asia. Example, [4]

Caucasian and its more restricted synonym Caucasoid belong to the system of racial classification proposed by European anthropologists in the 18th and 19th centuries. These terms refer to a broad group of peoples indigenous to Europe, western Asia, northern Africa, and much of the Indian subcontinent.

Others use skin color from light to brown as one of the characteristics, while specifically inclding South Asia [5]:

Anthropology Of or being a major human racial classification traditionally distinguished by physical characteristics such as very light to brown skin pigmentation and straight to wavy or curly hair, and including peoples indigenous to Europe, northern Africa, western Asia, and India. No longer in scientific use.

The original definition was based on craniology (note that skulls cannot indicate skin color). Also, there is enough research that concludes that all people in Europe, Middle East or America are mixed to some extent with Mongoloids (remember Genghiz Khan), Negroids, Native Americans etc. There is also research that says that Dravidian/Indo-Aryan mixing has not been very significant. Anyway, I don't think we should be focussing on such collection of "research evidence" here, since the term is no longer in academic use. The fact that Indo-Aryans are included in a very significant number of historical and current definitions of the term (except some folk definitions) should be enough. Also, there is no basis for the assumption that darkness of skin is directly proportional to the extent of Dravidian mixing. Also, the US judiciary example is simply given to illustrate the fact that "in the US, Caucasian has been mainly a distinction, based on skin color, for a group commonly called White Americans" -- a definition that is different from the one used elsewhere. From my UC Berkeley lectures on American history, I also remember that their legal definition of White in late 19th and early 20th century excluded Irish and Italians too (because "only Protestants can be White") The 1890 map should also be compared with later maps, like the one below. Template:Carleton S. Coon Racial Definitions

Note that Carleton S. Coon believed that Dravidians were too Caucasoids "due to their Caucasiod skull structure and other physical traits (e.g. noses, eyes, hair.)". Bottomline, from the beginning (original craniology definitions) till today, a majority of notions have clearly included most Indians, some of them Dravidians too, regardless of their skin color. I think a picture that illustrates the fact that the term has not always been strongly linked to skin color, like it is linked by some people today really adds value to the article. deeptrivia (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Coon's The Races of Europe of 1939 (not 1960) may be noted, but in the heydey of "scientific racism", Dravidians were certainly not considered "Caucasoid" (see Racial groups in India (historical definitions)). dab (𒁳) 11:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Great edits to the article, dab. Yes, only some considered Dravidians to be Caucasians, but as far as I can see, almost all considered north Indians to be Caucasoids regardless of their perceived mixing with Dravidians. Anyway, I think the article looks in much better shape now thanks to you. deeptrivia (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

yes, if you look at the 1890 map, it appears the consensus was that of a smooth gradient from "Caucasoid" in Sistan to "Dravida" in Karnataka, notably with a "Dravida" enclave in Maharashtra. The idea of the blue-green striation is, of course, that the high-caste population is more Caucasoid, and the low-caste population more Dravida. Whether this has some basis in fact is, as far as I know, still disputed, but the current debate of course does not operate with the notion of a "Caucasian race" and belongs on Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia. dab (𒁳) 14:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Image again

This article is about the racial concept, not the Peoples of the Caucasus. As such, images should be chosen because an RS has used them to illustrate something about the racial concept, rather than including images of the actual people of the Caucasus. The Behnam 20:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The Peoples of the Caucasus are within the Caucasian race.. --Vonones 01:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

indeed -- that's why the "Caucasoid" type was so named, for whetever that's worth, the peoples of the Caucasus were considered exemplary specimens of the type. dab (𒁳) 11:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should stick to using images that RS used to illustrate something about this topic. I bring this up because I'm concerned about the addition and removal of various images based upon whether or not certain Wikipedians believe that they are appropriate rather than sticking to images used by RS to illustrate something about this topic. This kind of OR behavior detracts from the quality of the article, and can lead to arbitrary edit wars over the "pet" images, gallery-making in violation of WP:NOT, and other childishness. The Behnam 21:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. What is the problem? If Blumenbach mentions Ossetians as the "Caucasoid" prototype, we sure as hell can show an image of an Ossetian girl. If Coons includes the Dravidians, we sure as hell can show an image of a Dravidian girl. That has nothing to do with "pet" images. I don't see any attempt to build pointless <galleries> here. dab (𒁳) 09:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, a gallery has been made since yesterday. I moved another picture being presented as "definitive" to this gallery... hopefully we can cut the gallery for being what it is. I don't agree that if a source calls Ossetian prototypical, then we can take any picture of an Ossetian and present it as if this Ossetian somehow embodies those characteristics that led to the designation of Ossetians as prototypical. How do we know that the pictured individual person is not an exception? To avoid this and perhaps other problems, we shouldn't be making these kind of original judgments of the intentions of the source, such as judging that this-or-that picture of a person from Ossetia embodies the characteristics that the source described. We should avoid this original research, even if it makes sense to us - we abide by the policy for textual content and we must also do so for images. The Behnam 17:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I cannot accept this as a bona fide argument, since you can apply it to any article on any ethnicity or racial group, whatsoever. We need to apply common sense here. As I've already pointed out at Talk:White people#Photos:

I propose the following criteria for image choice:

• identifiable ethnicity. The image source must give the region of origin of the person depicted, not just generic "white".
• aesthetic portrait, not just a random snapshot.
• historical images should be preferred, but they have the disadvantage of being b/w. Ideal are early colour photographs
• avoid famous people
• White Americans have their own article. They are not ideal for this one, since their 'ethnicity of origin' can rarely be determined

possibilities matching these criteria I can find are are: Image:Armeniangirl.jpg (two Armenian girls); Image:0000233523-004.jpg (Georgian girl); Image:Persian local woman.jpg (Persian girl); Image:Palestinian girl in Qalqiliya.jpg (Palestinian girl). I am sure we can find many others. The aim should be to present at least four images, covering Europe, Central Asia, North Africa and the Near East. The problem seems indeed to be that white people are somehow not considered "ethnic", and uploaders are often content to just describe the image as "blond man" or similar, without stating region of origin.

This reluctance to illustrate "white" racial concepts (while at the same time Black people is literally plastered with images) is pathological. Definitions of "race" by skin colour is an optical thing. It isn't valid anthropologically, as you can read up on race, but we can bloddy well illustrate what gave the concept its appeal over several centuries (and popularly to the present day). dab (𒁳) 19:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

1890 map

DarkTea, we state correctly that the blue area is labelled "Caucasian race" in the the map legend. See Image:Meyers b11 s0476a.jpg. Try to check things that are refernced before removing things. The classification of Dravidians is pertinent because they were classified as "Caucasian" by one author. We need to point out that this author was the exception. I agree that the New Zealand bit may be offtopic. dab (𒁳) 15:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the first two points may be on topic and I agree that the last one is off topic.----^DarkTea 15:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Images of children.

The gallery consisting of random images of children is irrelevant to the article for several reasons, children were never used as examples by physical anthropologists, only fully grown individuals could display sufficiently developed facial features to be used as good examples, and more importantly, no scholar has pointed these exact children out as belonging to the race, so using them is pretty much original research. Only authorised anthropological plates and similar images composed by actual physical anthropologists should be used. Funkynusayri 22:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree completely... thank you. The Behnam 15:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

We use them because they fit the description of the Caucasian race. --Vonones 16:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Right. According to who? An RS on the topic has said that of these pictures? No, according to you. It is original research for Wikipedians to judge a picture as fitting or illustrative of the topic - reliable sources about this topic must be the ones that do this. Hence we should try to find these pictures supported by reliable sources and try to add them without violating the image policy. The Behnam 16:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything to this effect at WP:RS or Wp:Images#Image_choice_and_placement or Wikipedia:No_original_research. Do you have a cite or is this your original interpretation? In fact Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images even encourages you to use pictures you take yourself, and notes that published images are exactly those which are likely to be unusable due to copyright. --JWB 18:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

wtf? Behnam, can you not tell us plainly what point it is you want to make instead of this silly edit warring over perfectly relevant images? Can you stop the silliness and present some sort of coherent argument instead? Funkynusayri, I agree images of adults would be better (but the 1881 Georgian girl is a young adult, and the image is perfect to illustrate the Blumenbach quote). The problem is that there seems to be some systemic bias towards uploading images of pretty girls. I assure you I wasn't looking for girls specifically, but all the usable images I was able to find on commons happened to be of girls. For instance, look at commons:Category:Tamils: all the males are either famous blokes or part of some scene (as opposed to mere portraits). There is Image:Tamil boy in vetti.jpg, but that's (a) also a child, and (b) photographed from an angle that doesn't make it a good portrait. Image:Tamil girls group.jpg otoh is excellent. We'll have to work what we've got. dab (𒁳) 19:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The image of the Georgian wasn't present when I removed the children. I agree that the particular photo should be up, if not only to show what an actual person from the Caucasus looks like. Funkynusayri 01:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Armenian girls look a little arbitrary now. Either present four images (Europe, Central Asia, SW Asia, N Africa) or none (besides the Georgian illustrating Blumenbach). dab (𒁳) 11:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

1881 Armenian women.

From WP:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedicity, "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic)":

• Simply put, the pictures in the gallery of this dispute are not notable.
• The issue of relevance is a bit more complicated. How do we properly establish relevance without a directly supporting source? We want pictures that illustrate the sourced textual content - an example being dab's desire to illustrate Blumenbach's definition - because illustration of the concept is critical to relevance. As WP:OR#Original images is a pretty liberal section (unfortunately), it seems the goal should be to see if an image may "propose unpublished ideas or arguments" in violation of WP:OR. In the case of the Georgian girl, the unpublished idea is that this Georgian girl fits Blumenbach's definition, yet fitting this definition is critical to establishing relevance to this racial concept. The same situation applies to most of the other pictures - if no source has cited them as somehow definitive or illustrative to the concept, we cannot properly establish the relevance critical to meriting inclusion.

Unless a picture is we can establish both of the notability and relevance of a picture, we cannot use it. In this situation, the pictures are not notable and we have no legitimate way to establish relevance, so these pictures cannot be used. If we are careful to make sure both criteria are met before adding a picture, then we should be able to avoid further "arbitrary" disputes and silly gallery-making. The Behnam 19:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean notable? this is on topic the images, just like Black people or whatever. --Vonones 20:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• No, because this isn't the "white" equivalent to the black people page, this is about a scientific term. See white people instead. The actual equivalent would be the Negroid page, but a few editors there remove any pictures that are added, regardless of relevance. Funkynusayri 21:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • look, images are supposed to illustrate some point made in the article. If the article says "Blumenbach based this thing on the Georgian people", it is perfectly reasonable to show an image of a Georgian. The only dispute here would be regarding whether the image does, in fact, represent a Georgian, or if we can find a better or more typical image to replace it. Similarly, if the article states, Coon (1939) included Dravidians in the term, it is perfectly pertinent to show an image of a Dravidian. The mere presence of an image doesn't imply "Wikipedia endorses Dravidians being Caucasoid". Wikipedia doesn't endorse anything, it merely illustrates. dab (𒁳) 09:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• What is the purpose of having the young Armenian girls in the article? The Georgian is already a good example of a Caucasian from the Caucasus. It would better to show examples of adults that would be considered "Caucasian" from other parts of the world. Funkynusayri 17:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

A image of an Armenian women in a traditional dress. The head-dress is usually found in the Caucasus.

Also found this. --Vonones 03:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

the "Armenian girls" are left over from a revision that had several images illustrating the "Caucasian type". There is no point in keeping them as an isolated example. There is no reason to illustrate Armenians in particular, we just happened to have a nice image of Armenians. The image of the Georgian woman is different, since Georgians are explicity mentioned as having served as Blumenbach's inspiration. dab (𒁳) 11:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Remove the Armenian girl picture. The fewer picture the better, especially since they are cluttering up the right side of the article.----^DarkTea 20:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

These images are not representative of the "caucasian race" they should be removed. Muntuwandi 14:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What images? The one you just removed is from a German book which states they're "Europäids", which is synonymous with Caucasoid.

From the book: "Menschenrassen († Taf. Sp. 440, 441): Europäide (weiße) Hptrasse in Europa u. Vorderasien; Unterrassen: Nordische (Gesicht schmal, Augen blau, Haar blond) in Skandinavien, N-Dtschl. (I, 1); Dinarische (Rundschädel, Augen u.Haare dunkel) in Ostalpen, West- u. Nordbalkan (I, 2); Mittelländische oder Westische (klein, Augen u. Haare dunkel, hellbraun) in den Mittelmeerländern (I, 3|; Alpine oder Ostische (Gesicht niedrig, mit »Stumpfnase«, Augen und Haare dunkel, untersetzt) in gebirgigen

Erich Mendelsohn.

Gegenden Mitteleuropas (1,4); Ostbaltische (Gesicht breit mit vorstehenden Backenknochen, Haar blond, Augen grau) in Rußland, Polen, Böhmen, Balkan (I, 5); Vorderasiatische (Nase gebogen, Hinterhaupt »wie abgehackt«) in Kleinasien (1,6); Orientalische (Langschädel, Haare und Augen dunkel) in Arabien, Persien (I, 7); Ostmediterrane (Langschädel, schlank, dunkel, Haar wellig) in 0-Iran und Indien (I, 8-10)."

http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Meyers_Blitz-Lexikon/0236 Funkynusayri 14:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC) can't read german Muntuwandi 15:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• I can. Please assume some good faith for once. Funkynusayri 15:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What Happened To The Craniology

Where is the info on the craniology and what physical characteristics of caucasoid people are? It seems like it is gone. Zachorious 01:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Russian link

Sources that are not in the English language cannot be used as citations on the English language Wikipedia. User:MoritzB provided a citation on this edit from this website which is not in English. It is in Russian. UserMoritzB claims that "A link is provided to verify translation" in his/her edit summary, but I cannot find the link.----^DarkTea© 19:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The link is: http://www.humanities.edu.ru/db/msg/68611

Using Babelfish you can verify that the translation is faithful to the Russian text. http://babelfish.altavista.com/

MoritzB 19:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Babelfish can translate from Russian to English notwithstanding, the source is still in Russian. The requirement to have English sources does not make exceptions for sources that can be translated to English with Babelfish.---^DarkTea© 19:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement to use only English language sources. There is only a recommendation that they should be used in preference to foreign language sources "assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality".MoritzB 19:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The "University of College Cork chair of anatomy and physiology" and "2007 Encyclopedia Britannica" sources are of at least equal quality. If there does not exist any suitably good English-language sources, then foreign language sources are allowed. Since there are two good English language sources, the Russian language citation is not allowed.----^DarkTea© 20:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

However, the information those sources give is of inferior quality. MacConaill says that Caucasians are "native to Europe" although they were actually always considered to be native to a number of areas outside Europe. The physical description should also be better. MoritzB 20:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Your universal affirmative is incorrect and MacConail is a good source. MacConail says Caucasians are "native to Europe", but you say they are "always considered to be native to a number of areas outside of Europe". Universal affirmatives are disproved by a single contrary example. Your universal affirmative has been proven false by MacConaill's "native to Europe" assertion. MacConaill's credentials as the "University of College Cork chair of anatomy and physiology" are impeccable. His credentials are not of "inferior quality". The point of view that Caucasians are "native to Europe" is credible because it comes from a reliable source.----^DarkTea© 21:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood. MacConaill says that Caucasians are native to Europe. I agree. But they are also native to areas outside Europe which is not a claim disputed by MacConaill. The point is that he doesn't describe a number of Caucasian physical characteristics which are relevant. MoritzB 21:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

MacConaill has provided a complete definition of the Caucasoid race that is not lacking in descriptiveness. His definition is smaller than the Russian language one, because he doesn't include Middle Easterners and others. For example, all he would have to say is that they have light skin while the other definition would have to say that they have light skin and dark skin. Similarly, he would say that they have thin lips while the Russian language definition would say that they have thin and medium sized lips. The Russian language definition is longer because it is differs from his by including more people, necessitating more words to encompass the physical characteristics of non-Europeans. It is not longer because it is more complete. There is nothing lacking in his definition that would warrant the inclusion of a foreign language source like you propose.----^DarkTea© 21:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I am certain that MacConaill doesn't say that only Europeans are Caucasians. What would Middle Easterners be then? The Caucasian race is one of the four major races of mankind. MacConaill's views are simply misrepresented in the article as they would otherwise be WP:FRINGE. Besides, America is not the whole world and if scholars in other parts of the world disagree with MacConaill their definitions are relevant, too. MoritzB 22:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The 2007 Encyclopedia Britannica says the Caucasoid race is also known as the "European... geographic race", so MacConaill's view that the Caucasoid race does not include Middle Easterners is not a fringe view point. The discussion is about a single disfavored foreign language source. I have no doubt that non-Americans have notable views on things, but if their writing is not in English, then they can't be used as sources if reliable English language sources are present.----^DarkTea© 22:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

MacConall does not have that view. I honestly recommend that you acquaint yourself with Carleton Coon or John Randall Baker because you seem to know little of race. And a 1981 Reader's Digest article is a very poor source.MoritzB 23:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that the text MacConnail writes is different from the beliefs MacConnaill actually holds is original research.----^DarkTea© 23:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the source is not available online. It is obscure and unverifiable.MoritzB 00:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if the MacConnail source is not credible, the 2007 Encyclopedia Britannica source is credible and online, preventing the inclusion of the Russian language source.----^DarkTea© 00:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Britannica's Bangladesh article mentions Caucasoids as part of the racial melting pot of Bangladesh. Even if the Europe article did mean to limit "Caucasoids" to Europe only, which is not at all clear, Britannica cannot be said to have that viewpoint. --JWB 01:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The term "Aryan" is ambiguous. The Encyclopedia Britannica may conceive Aryans as originally coming from Europe. Although the Britannica Encyclopedia article refers to the Aryans as Caucasoids, it does not refer to the Turks, Arabs or Persians as Caucasoids. I would like to see more evidence that they conceive Arabs, Persians, Moors, Berbers, etc. as Caucasians otherwise it would be better to assume that they are internally consistent with their "European... geographical race" definition of Caucasian.----^DarkTea© 04:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The Brittanica article on Aryan does not; apparently you didn't bother to look before posting that. The idea that the Indo-Aryans were from Europe is far more obsolete, racist and unscientific than Coon, and it is ironic that you would endorse it while barring Coon. The Brittanica article on Iran does mention Aryan descent. --JWB 09:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica's Aryan article says Aryan has different definitions. It is not clear what definition Encyclopedia Britannica used on its Bangladeshi Demographics article when they said Caucasoid Aryans. I would like clear evidence that the Encyclopedia Britannica is internally contradictory with its Caucasian definition as the "European geographical race".----^DarkTea© 17:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The Aryan article lists two definitions, one of which it says is 19th century and obsolete, so Britannica is not using that definition in the Bangladesh article. The Europe article is not asserting European and Caucasoid are identical, it just gives them as alternate ways of describing Europeans. It does not separately mention Middle Easterners and North Africans (who are more numerous in Europe than sub-Saharan Africans or S/SE/E Asians) so if you exclude them from European/Caucasoid, they must be part of the Africans and Asians mentioned next. --JWB 14:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"Sources that are not in the English language cannot be used as citations on the English language Wikipedia" -- this is utter nonsense. The Russian "source" in question does not seem to pass WP:RS, however. it's just a random online "humanities" database. dab (𒁳) 10:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It is V. Bunak's definition. He was the leading anthropologist in the Soviet Union post-WWII. MoritzB 10:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

um, in this case you should say so, and reference it to a publication of Bunak's. If you do that, there is no way whatsoever DarkTea can challenge this on grounds of being un-English. --dab (𒁳) 11:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The Russian page actually uses the term Европеоидная раса for which Babelfish gives Yevropeoidnaya race (apparently Europoid race) and only a secondary equivalence with Caucasoid. --JWB 15:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The Caucasian race and Europid race are exact synonymes.MoritzB 15:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Carleton S. Coon

Template:Carleton S. Coon Racial Definitions This should be conclusive: http://dienekes.angeltowns.net/texts/coonmed/ MoritzB 05:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Carleton S. Coon's Races of Europe is 60 years old about a scientific concept. It is no longer a reliable source.----^DarkTea© 05:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The work reflected the prevailing definition of the Caucasian race.MoritzB 06:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It may have reflected the prevailing definition at that time, but the Races of Europe book is 60 years old and is no longer a reliable source.----^DarkTea© 07:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• 1960 wasn't 60 years ago.

  

  This genetic distance map made in 2002 is an estimate of 18 world human groups by a neighbour-joining method based on 23 kinds of genetic information.

Anyhow, that's pretty much how Caucasoid was universally defined and supposed to live. I've seen similar genetic maps from today. Look right. And here's a map from a geography book which was used at in Europe up until the 90s at least: http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/425/weltrassenkarte3og2.jpg Funkynusayri 18:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The map you posted is excellent. It shows North American Indians are Caucasoid. I have another book that considers them to be Caucasoid too. The map is highly detailed and a great piece of work.----^DarkTea© 18:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• It doesn't. It shows that there are Caucasoids in North America (as well as Australia) today. It's a map of the modern distribution of humans, not original. Funkynusayri 18:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Coon and other English sources

Instead of foreign sources, use English ones, it's online. http://carnby.altervista.org/

Biasutti source: http://dienekes.angeltowns.net/texts/biasutticaucasoid/

Funkynusayri 15:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Changing quotations

An anonymous editor has changed several quotations on these edits to make them say Aryans managed to maintain racial purity as opposed to mixing with Dravidians. Of course, this is only a formal procedure, because there is no reason to reword quotations to change their meaning. I do not expect a valid reason for rewritting quotations to change their meaning.----^DarkTea© 19:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

US-centrism

Caucasian race?! African race? Wtf? Thet term "Caucasian race" is only used in the USA, also there is no usch thing as an "African race", as anyone can tell the obvious differences between say a Tunisian and a Nigerian. This article should be moved to Caucasoid race, and all silly, politically-motivated terms removed/cleaned up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.190.183 (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Massive removal of content

Dark Tea (talk · contribs) has taken the liberty of introducing massive changes since 10 September, including inexplicable removal of content. Can you restore the lost sections please, or else seek consensus for their removal? dab (𒁳) 14:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It could only be described as a massive addition of content. What content did I remove? Remember, I did not remove the map or the gallery. Someone else did that.----^DarkTea© 15:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the picture of a Georgian girl because I found the actual skull Blumenbach based the Caucasian racial classification from. Although Blumenbach made references to the Georgians as an aggregate, his actual hypothesis was derived from a single Georgian skull. It is original research to assume the random Georgian person is the same person as the Georgian girl Blumenbach based his classification from.----^DarkTea© 15:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

^ I agree, the skull is a much more appropriate image. Funkynusayri 15:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree the skull is appropriate. How does that translate to blanking the others? --dab (𒁳) 10:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• It doesn't. It simply means that I think the skull is appropriate, and more so than a picture of a random person. I'm not talking about the text itself. Funkynusayri 13:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thind Case

User:82.5.117.20 removed the Thind case on this edit with the edit summary "George Sutherland was not an anthropologist and had a vague 19th century understanding of the Caucasian race. He used the 'common man test' - incomprehensive.", however, the case is notable and verified from the US Supreme Court, a reliable source. It is, in fact, one of the most notable cases as it was key in determining the racial classification of Indian Americans. Its point of view on the Aryan Invasion Theory is standard. The Thind ruling posited an Aryan invader whose racial purity who devised the caste system to segregate the Dravidian. It considered the Dravidian not Caucasian while the Aryan invader was Caucasian. This is not a fringe point of view; it is the standard point of view on the matter. Although Sutherland was not an anthropologist himself, his ruling involved the expert testimony of anthropologists. Sutherland's own words show that he cited anthropologists in the formulation of his decision, "For instance, Blumenbach has five races; Keane following Linnaeus, four; Deniker, twenty-nine."----^DarkTea© 14:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Origins of Caucasoids and DuBois's and Bhasin's views

Since Du Bois was not an anthropologist, I naturally have reservations about including his view on the origin of the "Caucasian race" in this article. If we include his view (that Caucasoids are descended from a mixture of Mongoloid and black races), which is totally unqualified since he was not an anthropologist, then we should also include the opinions of every other person of history who had ever posited their view on races. Secondly, Bhasin's opinion that Caucasoids and Mongoloid had been differentiated from an ancestral race (Austroloid), if it is to be even included in this article (I have reservations about that too for reasons to follow), should be included in a section also titled "origins" that was there in the first place. There shouldn't be two sections in this article titled "origins". The reason I have reservations about including Bhasin's view is also due to the fact that he is a relatively unknown scientist from India. If we are to include in this article his view, then we are also obligated to include the views of every little known anthropologist who up to this day had posited their own view on the origin of races, and there are no doubt many.--Azzarzurna 15:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, why do you waste space on this page by such silly theories? Thanks to genetics, the origin of Caucasoids is just clear. Their ancestors separated from the ancestors of today's Somalis in East Africa ca. 50 000 years ago, and headed to the Middle East. They brought Y-haplogroup F and mtDNA haplogroup N. 45 000 years ago, during a warm interstadial, they massively expanded to Central Asia, Europe, North Africa and even to South-East and East Asia. In distant parts of Asia, they mixed with the descendants of the older "Australoid/Mongoloid" migration that left Africa maybe 60 000 years ago. From this mixture, several intermediate groups originated, e.g. Polynesians, Papuan highlanders or American Indians. Centrum99 82.100.61.114 04:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The attributed view is not even an accurate representation of Bhasin. If you look at the cited work of Bhasin on the Web, whoever inserted this completely misread the sentence discussing this. I corrected the Bhasin reference in another article, but forget which one now.

As for Centrum99, it is useless to keep saying these things without citation. If you have citable sources for those views, please add them to articles.

--JWB 05:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Map

The Huxley map is probably as good as any historical map for this, except that he doesn't call them Caucasians. He called them Xanthochroi, a name which, for fairly obvious reasons, did not catch on. So it's a little funny to say that the red on his map are the Caucasians (a little funnier that because of the poor scan and color indexing, subgroup B of the Mongoloid race in Central Asia are about the same color; in the original it is a cross-hatching but you can't see that here). --140.247.10.130 22:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Formatting, People of South Asia and Physical Characteristics

First of all, the article has too many lengthy quotes in italics, making it difficult to read. Why didn't the editors use the original sources and simply use quotation marks or block text? Also, some material is inappropriately put within quotes AND italics, such as "anthropologist Arthur Gobineau" and "French ethnologist Jean Joseph-Virey". Is there a question about their identities? Quotations are supposed to be used for significant or controversial material that was considered integral to a person's views, not ordinary words or facts.

Secondly, for an article on an historical "idea", the endless quotations in the sections of "People of South Asia" and "Physical Characteristics" don't add much. Surely there is a more concise way to convey the information that different people had ideas that contributed to the concept. You don't have to read their quotes from secondary sources.

Third, much of the discussion on this page has been about differing concepts, but the article doesn't help much in showing how contemporary findings in genetics, anthropology, archeology, etc. have contributed to changing ideas about populations and what current thinking is. --Parkwells (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of Anachronistic Terms - Anthropologist and Ethnologist - Before their time

There are descriptions of Arthur de Gobineau, a diplomat and man of letters, as an anthropologist, and Jean Joseph-Virey, a medical doctor and pharmacist, as an ethnologist, when these formal disciplines had not developed yet. Both men wrote a lot in a period. and may have been described as naturallists, with many interests, but it is a mistake to label them back with contemporary usage. Anthropology really developed in the late 19th and early 20th c. I have changed the descriptors to use terms of their time and to be consistent with how they are described elsewhere in separate articles in Wikipedia (and online).----Parkwells (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Formatting

Shouldn't the See Also section be before the References like every other Wikipedia page? Brandonrush (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Pointless Debate of who is White

I have never heard of more pointless talk from above. The issue of southern Europeans as Caucasians is obvious. They are. For one thing, the Moors occupied Sicily, not the Italian peninsula for 200 years. They occupied the Iberian peninsula 3 times that period, but that is besides the point, considering that Arab/Berber peoples are a Caucasoid people despite what people think, and even still, did not impact Italy (and other parts of southern Europe for that matter) in a great way. Studies show that Italians have a primarily Italic/Greco-Roman/Romano-Celtic background. But that is besides the point; much of the southern European diaspora in the Western hemisphere have other European origins which show social exceptance.

Southern Europeans are considered white by governments of North America and Australia, and are for the most part socially excepted as white as well (I highly doubt Americans would object to Rudy Giuliani or Tom Tancredo as describing themselves as white), which in reality, no one even cares. Discrimination against southern Europeans (Portuguese, Spaniards, Italians, Serbians, Croatians, Bosnians, Albanians, Slovenes, Greeks, Macedonians, Maltese, south Slavs) is old news, and should definitely not be included in this article. There will always be people who except them white or not and really should not be discussed in this article. This is about the Caucasian race, not white people. People's point of view on who is Caucasian should not overrulling the accurate scientific definition. 24.150.154.247 (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Galati

• Caucasoid means something which resembles people from the Caucasus, and it's pretty evident that Southern Euros, Mid Easterners and the likes resemble actual Caucasians far more than any blonde and blue eyed North Europeans. If any population should get questioned for it's "Caucasoidness", it would be those. Funkynusayri (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you implying that Mediterranean Caucasoids are more Caucasoids than north Europeans? I never really thought of it like that. By the way, I also think this is a pointless debate. It's mostly associated with Nazis who masturbate to white purity so much that they only consider the Nordic race as white (they even exclude Russians in some cases). — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 05:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah, if we go by the actual "scientific" definition of the word "Caucasoid", people who actually look like people from the Caucasus are closer to the "true" Caucasoid form. This would exclude far more North Europeans than South Europeans. But well, today the word "Caucasian" has been twisted in the US to pretty much mean North European, so it's kind of taken for granted now. Funkynusayri (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In North America and Australia though, few use the word Caucasian in describing themselves. They simply call themselves white. It is very obvious that Italian and other southern Europeans are Caucasian; there is no dispute, but the reason why I mentioned this is because morons up above were stating that they were not, even saying that Irish catholics were not Caucaisan which utterly ridiculous. Whether someone wants to consider them white is their concern (just look at southern European hollywood, for your answer/or the Italian presedntial nominees), but no one should deny that they are Caucasians. 24.150.154.247 (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Galati

Let me put it this way: do you consider Middle Eastern people 'white'? If no, why not? Is whiteness exclusive to speakers of Indo-European languages? Can Semitic peoples be considered white? I sure look white (although, I do have some minor Armenian ancestry). — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Middle Easterners are Caucasian and some have very fair complexions and could be considered as white as the Middle East has been a melting pot of Arabs/Levantines/Europeans etc; but when someone in North America and Europe hears Middle Easterner, they automatically assume light brown. I have a lot of Arab friends who's older parents consider themselves white, but their children dont see themselves as white.

What does it matter though anyway, the United States government sees you as white. I thought we were past this discussion though; discussing who is white totally POV; after all, I just gave you mine. Discussing who and what is white is a North American and British obcession. I lived in Italy, France, and Spain, and everyone calls themself Europeans first (even though they do consider themselves white). 24.150.154.247 (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Galati