Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Let's see, I have British, Irish, and French blood for sure (grandmother the two former, grandfather the latter). Supposedly, I have a bit of American Indian blood as well from my biological father, but I never knew him, so I can't confirm.

 

Regardless, I am obviously white, with brown hair and blue eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
They count as white though. Living in Spain, I had never really noticed it much, but I can see what you mean.

They count as what racially would be called Caucasian - but their skins CANNOT be called white ! That's the kind of trouble with talking about skin colour ! Colour isn't all about race - consider Riverwillows' post !

 

My mother was black, coffee colored, she married a white man. And threw 5 very white children. I am the only one with reddish brown hair, and blue eyes tho. And it's very straight. You'd never know to look at me.

Share this post


Link to post

They count as what racially would be called Caucasian.

 

I personally prefer not to be called Caucasian. You'll likely get a sarcastic "nope, never been there," for that over here.

Edited by Shienvien

Share this post


Link to post
I personally prefer not to be called Caucasian. You'll likely get a sarcastic "nope, never been there," for that over here.

Exactly. We're all PEOPLE. I always decline to put anything in that racial origin box, unless it is legally required of me. (and yes, Caucasian is a VILE word !)

 

But your lovely brownish Italian is NOT "white" !

Share this post


Link to post

That is something that has always confused me... why is the generic group called "Caucasian" when they may have no real heritage from that specific region at all? I've always wondered why I have to put that as my ethnicity on tests even though my family is mostly of Scottish/German descent.

 

Whenever I bring up the topic and ask parents/teachers "We have no ancestors from the Caucasus! Why are we considered Caucasian?" they always tell me that I'm thinking too much into it. I've never gotten a real answer.

Share this post


Link to post

It's a valid Question, Dimar.

 

I'm pure Irish on my dad's side. And I look it. So do my brothers. I am not sure what my mom's lineage is....in Africa, but I do know her grandmother is from Africa. But that's all I know. My mom died 7 years ago, so can't ask her now.

Share this post


Link to post

That is something that has always confused me... why is the generic group called "Caucasian" when they may have no real heritage from that specific region at all? I've always wondered why I have to put that as my ethnicity on tests even though my family is mostly of Scottish/German descent.

 

Whenever I bring up the topic and ask parents/teachers "We have no ancestors from the Caucasus! Why are we considered Caucasian?" they always tell me that I'm thinking too much into it. I've never gotten a real answer.

Aha! Finally one of my numerous Tumblr bookmarks comes in handy!

 

...Hmm, okay, not as handy as I thought, but the gist of it seems to be that a German anthropologist in about the year 1800 coined the term Caucasian, since the people from that region were known for their beauty. The history of white supremacy, however, led the term to be used as a synonym for white, and this became precedent in America when Indians were not allowed to immigrate to the country, despite being Caucasian and theoretically legally allowed, because they weren't white. This made Caucasian become one and the same as white legally, and with the rise of terms such as African American white folks began using the term Caucasian as an equally 'fancy' term.

 

EDIT: This Tumblr post is what I used for reference. None of the links had concrete answers, so I had to do a bit of assuming, so if I came to the wrong conclusion you guys can correct me!

Edited by soupnazi

Share this post


Link to post

I apologize in advance for this incoming gigantic post.

 

Oh racism, this is going to be a long story of many parts, but is essentially why I hate myself for being part black. Or rather, why people have made me hate myself for being part black.

 

To start off, I am of mixed descent. I am part Irish, Iranian, Native American....and part African American. I'm an absolute nerd, I live to make people laugh, and I love animals. I love helping people, I hate violence, and I usually am able to settle my differences with people through intelligent conversation. Unfortunately, because of my skin color, I have been told by many people that they expected me to like fighting, or rap music, or that they were surprised by how 'proper' I was. Even though nothing about my demeanor, nor the way I dress would give off this idea, they expect me to act like a stereotypical black person.

Because I was always being compared to the stereotype, I began to start hating other black people, or at least the ones that acted like the stereotype. Which, from what I have seen, is the majority of them. However, it could be that I'm just being hyper sensitive and critical of them because how people have treated me. I so desperately try to disassociate myself with black people, that I've clung to my Middle Eastern roots and emphasize that much more. My fursona, while an African Wild Dog, I joke is a Persian(Iranian) Wild Dog. Her name 'Sarnevesht' (Sar, or Sarneve for short) is my name in Farsi(language of Iran).

I've straightened my hair for as long as I can remember, I will say that I don't like something that I genuinely enjoy if it pertains to the stereotype. I am very curvy due to heritage, and I've considered surgery and lightening skin creams.

While my mother (who is Irish/Iranian) has a preference for black men, I have a preference for white men. This in due to several reasons, however I have been told by several guys I had crushes on that they wouldn't date me because I was black. Then they would go and date one of my friends who was very similar to me, but was that 'conventional cute'. It really hurt, and only further pushed the idea in my head that I was subpar because despite how sweet, funny, and nerdy I was, people only saw my skin color. After being single for four years (not all that long, unless you are repeatedly put down and all of your friends are dating and you are the well known third wheel) I genuinely believed that I would never find someone who would love me despite my race.

I'm currently in a relationship with a wonderful man who doesn't just love me despite my race, but embraces it and loves it. He's definitely helped my confidence, because I never previously believed that a guy like him existed. He pointed something out to me that I had never considered before. While being a nerdy black girl made me feel alienated and alone, because of how uncommon people like that are, I was a rarity. It made me different, but much more desirable and special.

 

So, I am no drug selling, butt 'twerking'(oh God, it hurts to type that), rap listening stereotype. I am a witty, adorable, nerdy mutt who loves alternative rock and dubstep, has an odd love for genetics, drawing, and costuming. That has a mini zoo consisting of ball pythons, leopard geckos, rats, and a cat, is a Furry, and constantly corrects her English major roommate on proper grammar and definitions.

I am slowly beginning to accept myself and have a much more positive self image. smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post

SarWildDog,

 

I'm so sorry to hear about your experiences. sad.gif No one should be made to feel like that over something they could not choose - be it your skin colour, your sexual preferences, your gender identification etc. It is very unfortunate that there ARE people in every race that will conform to a negative stereotype (for myself, the whites that still miss Apartheid). This subsection gives prejudiced people an example to go "SEE?! I TOLD YOU THEY WERE LIKE THAT!" at.

 

What's worse though, and you touched on that too, is that certain stereotypes are even used to discriminate WITHIN races. You don't conform to the norm and are rejected by your own people. So you don't fit in anywhere.

 

In South Africa, we're experiencing the "Clever Black" phenomenon (NOT my term). The expanding middle class of blacks are seen as suck-ups, sell-outs and white-wannabees by their poorer counterparts that still live in shacks. They are deemed "not black enough" any more because they live in suburbs and own pets. Surely a person has the right to choose the way they live, regardless of race, in a free country?

Share this post


Link to post

I don't care about your gender, sexual orientation, your race or nothing. I don't judge people. I don't hold grudges against people.

 

I live in North Carolina and if you came to my school you might immediately think when you hear a racist like joke that we're a bit racist. But if you spend a little time in our school we're all pretty chill about races. I mean my third block last semester was hilarious. I still don't get it but the African American's in there were dissing themselves. o3o

 

I'll be friends with ya no matter what. c:

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you everyone smile.gif

 

And Blue Nadir, it is ridiculous. Sometimes, it's not even just not acting like the stereotype that can alienate you. I hear over and over about how people of mixed descent have 'the best of both worlds' and other silly phrases. In middle school, there was a group of black girls who actually targeted and attacked other girls of mixed decent because they weren't 'pure', and 'weren't allowed to claim themselves as black'.

Share this post


Link to post
In middle school, there was a group of black girls who actually targeted and attacked other girls of mixed decent because they weren't 'pure', and 'weren't allowed to claim themselves as black'.

Whereas here in America, if I had been born just 10 years earlier, and in the south, even though I was pale white, blond hair and blue eyes at birth, because my mother was black, my birth certificate would have been stamped "black" or "negro" for race.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Sock, you've just directly contradicted yourself. In one sentance "when we limit words, we limit our understanding and knowledge" and in the next proposing that we should do precisely that by narrowing our current understanding of the word racism.

I don't believe I did. I've adapted to expanded, more specific language, so when talking with others who agree that racism has to do with power, we have a more specific word. We can talk about colorism and other such phenomena and know exactly what we're talking about. It's more specific. More descriptive. I do not see that as limiting.

 

In the original link, the Black I substituted was "they", meaning Whites.

 

No, no, sorry, I mean I understand why you did it, but there are different histories surrounding these, so the point didn't quite work for me, was all I meant.

 

You don't seem to fully grasp the current political situation in South Africa, nor the history behind it,

 

You're right, which is why I'm asking questions, and I appreciate you taking the time to reply.

 

(yes, hate to break it to you, but our Coloured* and Indian populations are also unhappy)

 

That's not breaking anything to me. From what I gather, pretty much no one is happy with how things are, unfortunately.

 

Whites make up 9% of the population. No way in hell will any white person influence ANY of the things the original commenter accuse them of in their post by their voting power.

 

I don't think that's the point of the post I linked, though? The point was that apartheid is a significant part of history that has left lingering effects on South Africa.

 

I'm also curious to know how anyone is "forced into poverty"? Are they taken there by gunpoint and ordered to be poor?

 

They may as well be.

 

Segregation wasn't an overnight thing. Heck, in Georgia they just held their first segregated prom (which is not much of a win considering they still held a whites-only prom afterwards...). 'Sundown Towns' were a large part of this:

 

Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism by James W. Loewen

from amazon:

 

No blacks allowed, especially after dark. This was the unwritten rule in a “sundown” town. In his trademark revelatory style, bestselling author James W. Loewen explores one of America’s best-kept secrets as he unearths the making of sundown towns and discloses the fact that many white neighborhoods and suburbs are the result of years of racism and segregation. Anna, Illinois; Darien, Connecticut; and Cedar Key, Florida, are just a few examples of the thousands of all-white towns established between 1890 and 1968, many of which still exist today. White residents of these towns used any means possible — including the law, harassment, race riots, and even murder — to keep African Americans and other minority groups out.

 

        Powerful and unprecedented, Sundown Towns tells the story of how these towns came into existence, what maintains them, and what to do about them. It also deepens our understanding of the role racism has played and continues to play in our society.

 

Today there are still neighborhoods primarily with white people and neighborhoods primarily with black (or Hispanic) people. These POC neighborhoods are systematically kept in poverty through things like making birth control more expensive in low-income neighborhoods. POC neighborhoods are also given lower funded schooling with lower funding for supplies and teachers, meaning these kids don't get as good of an education, are less likely to get into college, and less likely to get a higher-paying job, getting stuck in minimum wage jobs like food service or retailing.

 

And by "politicians", are you implying white politicians? As I explained above, the politicians here are black.

 

I apologize for my confusing wording. When I said "Mainly here POC were forced into poverty [...]" I meant here as in the USA where I'm not, not here, in general, let me explain it to you. I recognize that not all politics are USA politics and so was trying to convey that I was specifically talking about what I have knowledge about - the USA. :3

 

Why are they not helping their oppressed brethren by building the houses they promise each election instead of spending $25million of taxpayers' money on private homesteads?

 

Probably having to do with classism, but definitely a fair question to ask.

 

The poor black majority is being given "bread and circuses" to divert their attention from this cold, hard fact and to keep them voting for the same party.

 

Brings up a question - does South Africa also suffer from a limited party system (such as there are various parties but only a handful are ever voted in)? It's a very polarized system and it sucks. That's unfortunate. =\

 

Why is it a big deal anyways? There's many who also say "whites".

 

I highly suggest you read my posts carefully, Alpha, rather than pulling your usual baiting act.

 

"But on 'black' being considered degrading - is this in relation to calling them "blacks" or calling them "black folk"? Again, perhaps a cultural difference, but here, anyway, the problem is when we revert people to their skin color and ignore that they are people. And the complaint comes because usually they are being called "blacks" by people who don't call "whites" "whites" but "white people" or (even more offensive) just "people"."

 

If you're not understanding my point, then just ask.

 

...Hmm, okay, not as handy as I thought, but the gist of it seems to be that a German anthropologist in about the year 1800 coined the term Caucasian, since the people from that region were known for their beauty. The history of white supremacy, however, led the term to be used as a synonym for white, and this became precedent in America when Indians were not allowed to immigrate to the country, despite being Caucasian and theoretically legally allowed, because they weren't white. This made Caucasian become one and the same as white legally, and with the rise of terms such as African American white folks began using the term Caucasian as an equally 'fancy' term.

 

Here is the quote I have on that:

 

“Where, for example, did the term Caucasian come from? Although many take it to be ‘real’ and don’t think about its racist connotations, the term has racist origins. It was developed in the late eighteenth century by a German anthropologist, Johann Blumenbach. He developed a racial classification scheme that put people from the Russian Caucasus at the top of the racial hierarchy because he thought that Caucasians were the most beautiful and sophisticated people; darker people were put on the bottom of the list: Asians, Africans, Polynesians, and Native Americans (Hannaford 1996). It is amazing when you think about it that this term remains with us, with few questioning its racist origin and connotations.”

 

From: Margaret L. Andersen and Patricia Hill Collins, “Systems of Power and Inequality”

 

One of the comments:

 

Also the category was pretty much a tool for the US government to keep POC from becoming citizens and supporting white supremacy.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't believe I did. I've adapted to expanded, more specific language, so when talking with others who agree that racism has to do with power, we have a more specific word. We can talk about colorism and other such phenomena and know exactly what we're talking about. It's more specific. More descriptive. I do not see that as limiting.

And using 'colourism' or 'institutional racism' is great as a way of refining terms when you are talking in those circles. But that wasn't what we were talking about, was it? We were talking about the insistance of some that the root word, 'racism', be redefined itself to refer only to discrimination backed by power. *That* is what I am saying is wrong. By all means use new terms to refine specifics. By all means use compound words (institutional racism) to describe which particular part of the whole you are speaking of. But narrowing the original word so that it no longer covers what it once did - and doing it *purely* for the benefit of those who do discuss social sciences, and not the general public - is something I am very against.

 

Racism is discrimination motivated by a persons race.

 

That is the end of it. History and political power have no place in that definition. And shouldn't do. Other words can be used, refining terms can be added, but that definition, at it's base, should not be changed because of a political agenda.

Share this post


Link to post

By all means use compound words (institutional racism) to describe which particular part of the whole you are speaking of. But narrowing the original word so that it no longer covers what it once did - and doing it *purely* for the benefit of those who do discuss social sciences, and not the general public - is something I am very against.

 

Racism is discrimination motivated by a persons race.

I couldn't agree more.

 

For instance, here we have the one big thing called 'racism', and within that there are several sub-categories.

People often have issues understanding these things, and someone misinformed will claim that whites can't experience racism.

 

There are clearly different types of racism, but they are still all racism.

Share this post


Link to post
Racism is discrimination motivated by a persons race.

 

That is the end of it. History and political power have no place in that definition. And shouldn't do. Other words can be used, refining terms can be added, but that definition, at it's base, should not be changed because of a political agenda.

I agree, and I find it kind of unbelievable that some people are arguing otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree. The thing about redefining things is that it only works if everybody is familiar with the definition being used.

 

When you try to talk about a term with people who don't understand the very narrow new definition you're using, all you do is confuse and alienate them.

 

Think of it like when people start talking with all kinds of technical talk you don't understand--you get confused and don't have any clue what they're talking about. That's kinda what happens when you redefine a term and then use that redefined term with people who don't know the new definition that you've assigned to the term.

Share this post


Link to post

Racism is not about color, although that can help make the argument for those who are bigots.

 

When the Irish first started immigrating en mass back in the 1800's (my dad's ancestors among them), they were viewed by most of the US in the same capacity as black slaves. Even in the early 1900's they could only get work on railroads, as washerwomen, professional brawlers...if you had even a hint of an accent, and especially anything sounding like a stereotypical name, you were viewed as a lesser being. A "mick". Not good for anything except menial labor. And all kinds of stereotypes were perpetuated and assumed about you.

 

So racism does not always mean color.

Share this post


Link to post
I highly suggest you read my posts carefully, Alpha, rather than pulling your usual baiting act.

Socky, I did see it. I was throwing that out for anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Whereas here in America, if I had been born just 10 years earlier, and in the south, even though I was pale white, blond hair and blue eyes at birth, because my mother was black, my birth certificate would have been stamped "black" or "negro" for race.

That happened in the US.

Share this post


Link to post

That happened in the US.

Yes indeed. And in South Africa - where I seem to recall a ghastly case where a black couple gave birth to a white child (these things can happen; genes can go WAY further back than we know !) - and the child was taken from them to be raised in a SUITABLE family. mad.gif No I can't find the source of that just now - I read it in a book about SA apartheid, which I no longer have. But I will.

 

ETA not found that yet, but we must also remember the reverse: Sandra Laing among others.

Edited by fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post

Yes indeed. And in South Africa - where I seem to recall a ghastly case where a black couple gave birth to a white child (these things can happen; genes can go WAY further back than we know !) - and the child was taken from them to be raised in a SUITABLE family. mad.gif No I can't find the source of that just now - I read it in a book about SA apartheid, which I no longer have. But I will.

 

ETA not found that yet, but we must also remember the reverse: Sandra Laing among others.

Fuzz - I hope you're not talking about Happy Sindane. smile.gif This kid was disturbed, to say the least. He claimed that he was a white child that had been kidnapped by black people. Upon investigation, it was found that he was of mixed descent. His mother, a black domestic helper, and his father, her alleged employer, had abandoned him while he was still very jong. He made several attempts at self-harm and was murdered earlier this year.

 

If you look at the pictures, he is remarkably fair skinned. I suspect his mother had white ancestors and therefore some recessive white traits in her lineage. Genetics is funny that way. I can for the life of me not fathom how "white" parents can produce a truly black child (please refer to my earlier explanation of Coloured vs Black in South Africa) as black traits tend to be dominant. huh.gif DNA is very tricksy...

Share this post


Link to post

Fuzz - I hope you're not talking about Happy Sindane. smile.gif This kid was disturbed, to say the least. He claimed that he was a white child that had been kidnapped by black people. Upon investigation, it was found that he was of mixed descent. His mother, a black domestic helper, and his father, her alleged employer, had abandoned him while he was still very jong. He made several attempts at self-harm and was murdered earlier this year.

 

If you look at the pictures, he is remarkably fair skinned. I suspect his mother had white ancestors  and therefore some recessive white traits in her lineage. Genetics is funny that way. I can for the life of me not fathom how "white" parents can produce a truly black child (please refer to my earlier explanation of Coloured vs Black in South Africa) as black traits tend to be dominant.  huh.gif  DNA is very tricksy...

No I'm not.

 

And I still can't find it - but three people I lent the book to also remembered it. (This is what I get for lending out good info on important topics - half my books vanish !) One guy says it was in the Cape Coloured community though - which makes more sense, genetically.

 

But the critical issue was that the child was taken from the family because he was "too good" for them. They were black and the child was white, so must be properly raised by good white folk ! This was back in the same sort of time frame as Sandra.

 

BUT - in terms of the DNA thing - in 2010 - I googled frantically about this and hit something not relevant to the racism issue - there was a case of a white baby born to two truly black parents in 2010 - well documented and still fascinating scientists:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10697682

 

and

 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/...white-baby.html

 

They have almost ruled out albinism now (something about her hair) and are reckoning on a "rare genetic mutation".

 

What is more likely, he says, is a genetic mutation within the little girl herself which she will then pass on to her children if she has any in the future.
Edited by fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post

That is interesting... I know about black albinos- who are unfortunately hunted for parts to use in magic rituals in some places- but I've never heard of two people of one race having a baby of another like that. (Guess we aren't so different, huh? ;D )

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.