It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Stop using the word "Caucasian" to mean white

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: JesusXst
a reply to: 3danimator2014

With all due respect, it does bother me when people 'mis label' me. A bit racist of you isn't it, to expect me not to speak out about this when there are other colored people speaking out for their heritage.

Or are the only ones allowed to speak out about their heritage those from the BLM movement and illegal immigrants? Then it's ok right?




Did I say ANYTHING about what you just mentioned? No. I didn't. But your whiny reply to me says it all.

Personally, I think it's ridiculous to be proud of something you had zero control or influence over, namely your skin colour and where you come from. And yes, I do think that about proud blacks too. Happy?




posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 08:36 AM
link   
I am a mixture of English, French, Dutch-German, Spanish, Creek, Cherokee, and probably quite a few more that I haven't discovered yet. Who cares? I am NOT English, nor French, nor Germanic... I am REDNECK.

I like what TrueBrit said earlier... redneck does not define me, I define redneck.

There is a difference between genetics and culture. Redneck is my culture... that mongrelized mix of nationalities that mean less that nothing are my genetics. I take extreme pride in my culture. I take extreme pride in who I am. I have much much more in common with a Southern black man than I will ever have with Yankees of any skin tone.

I feel little more than pity for those who can find nothing in themselves or their culture to elicit self-pride. The greatest indicators of this personality defect is an overly emphatic emphasis on genetics. To try and take pride in skin color, to try and define oneself by skin color, is to prove to the world that there is nothing more substantial to your being than that. You don't like being called Caucasian? Tough. Be something more.

The first thing people see is skin color. It's an identifying characteristic, like a scar across someone's face or a big gaudy tattoo. It's a major part of any physical description, and the word 'Caucasian' is used synonymously with lighter-toned skin. 'Black' or 'African-American' is used to describe darker skin tones. These terms have no meaning outside that loosely-descriptive purpose. What matters is what's inside: who are you, not who were your ancestors.

It's no wonder so much racism still exists, when so many people have so little inside the skin that they have to define themselves by that skin.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: JesusXst

Anglo-Saxon is an even less accurate way of describing whites though..


Then cracker it is! lol



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: JesusXst

I prefer the term "European-Americans"; not all whites are "Anglo-Saxon"; technically speaking, I'm "Anglo-Norman".

Anymore, none of it really matters anyway...........I'm not a POC (people of color) and that's all that matters anymore.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I don't know about your experience, but I've traveled the world extensively and you might be VERY surprised to learn that all across the globe, in every country I've visited there are the local version of "Redneck" culture.

You for example, might find you have more in common with Italian, Greek or French "Rednecks" than you do with "white" people living in Boston! The only real difference is language. When I travel to Italy for example, I typically buddy-up with the local "Rednecks" to find the best restaurants that aren't over priced tourist traps. They're usually very helpful and friendly. Finding them isn't hard........just wear a Harley-Davidson T-Shirt with Jeans. They're everywhere!



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: JesusXst

The blog you quoted is wrong. The blogger likely just wants to use the "Anglo-Saxon" in conversation because it sounds cool.

Anglo-Saxons refer to a specific Germanic tribe that migrated to Britain in the 5th century. When you say "Anglo-Saxon" it refers to this group in particular, and people of Spaniard, Portuguese, and even Greek origin are not descended from the Anglo-Saxons. How can you refer to whites as Anglo-Saxon when not all whites are Anglo-Saxon?

"Caucasian" refers to the origin of Europeans and all whites are descended from Caucasoids. The phrase "Caucasian race" was first used by the philosopher Christoph Meiners in his book "The Outline of the HIstory of Mankind" in 1785. If his book is considered racist today, that's because people in the 18th century had different attitudes about race than we do today. It wouldn't mean that his entire book is invalid. However I haven't read it so I don't know what it's like.

You could have learned this from a cursory Wikipedia search.
edit on 10/31/16 by peskyhumans because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: digital01anarchy
Additionally, we now know our species first appeared in Africa, so the biology isn’t any good either.

Lol the out of africa theory is a theory not proven fact. It is not racist. LOL pretty soon black history revisionist will say its racist that most of white population had colored eyes and blond hair and that in actuality it was always black people to have blue eyes and blond hair first.


Blue eyes are a recessive trait, while brown eyes are a dominate trait. If one parent has blue eyes and the other has brown eyes, the child will have brown eyes. Whites are the only race with blue or green eyes. How can whites have originated in Africa when Africans don't have blue eyes? How does this explain whites having blue eyes?

The same with blonde and red hair. Whites are the only race with blonde and red hair.

You can't say it came from Neanderthal, because studies have shown that Asians also have Neanderthal DNA. Whites just have a slightly higher concentration of it. Yet the vast majority of Asians have black hair and brown eyes.

Yet most posters here will say I'm racist, or ignorant, or "aliens".



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: JesusXst
a reply to: 3danimator2014

With all due respect, it does bother me when people 'mis label' me. A bit racist of you isn't it, to expect me not to speak out about this when there are other colored people speaking out for their heritage.

Or are the only ones allowed to speak out about their heritage those from the BLM movement and illegal immigrants? Then it's ok right?



Did I say ANYTHING about what you just mentioned? No. I didn't. But your whiny reply to me says it all.

Personally, I think it's ridiculous to be proud of something you had zero control or influence over, namely your skin colour and where you come from. And yes, I do think that about proud blacks too. Happy?



its obvious this is what this thread was all about; it was never about lineage, or anthropology.

waaa

edit on 31-10-2016 by odzeandennz because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: JesusXst
a reply to: TrueBrit

Those are good examples for anglo saxons


however i really hate being called a cock asian.


Meh... I can claim it. Caucasus region is in there, but so is... pretty much everything else. Some of us are mutts ya know.

Race in the U.S. is defined by what you look like more than anything else (although there are cultural factors). If you look Europid you are "Caucasion". Not technically correct, but there isn't a technically correct for most Americans. They need a descriptor though. It seems like a silly thing to get your panties in a bunch over honestly.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
I have declared my ethnicity/race/whatever to be "European 2.0".

My ancestors came to the New World from England, got frisky with the natives....and Voila! Here I am! Just an updated version of the original!


Although, I have been called everything from "white", "cracker", "whitebread", "gringa", "Anglo", "caucasion", etc...

I'm still sticking with "European 2.0"


If for no other reason, simply because I enjoy the funny looks until I explain...



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: JesusXst

You might want to get that looked it by a professional if its really bothering you that bad.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   

This is a long vid lecture

Nell Painter combines the discursive meanings of scholarship with the visual meaning of painting, to answer, literally, why white people are called 'Caucasian,' what that looks like, and how they all relate to our ideas about personal beauty. Series: "UC Berkeley Graduate Council Lectures" [Humanities]


Very interesting vid lecture if you guys/gals have the time to view it, the term is made arbitrarily to describe anyone with a certain morphological trait that Bluembach made because he really loved the people of the Caucasus, but in the vid lecture especially at time 40:51 that the idea of the beauty of the Caucasians is linked to the idea of the slavery of the Caucasian.

The beautiful skull and Blumenbach’s errors: the birth
of the scientific concept of race

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Generally I stop using Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid unless quoting some one, I go with Eurasian myself although that covers a lot of folks including Paupans and East Asians, so if I wanted to kinda narrow it down, then perhaps west or North western Eurasians. oh btw the lady in the vid with the hair??? she may have gotten that trait from guy's like this

Kirke, Daughter of the Sun

Kirke (Circe) is the daughter of Helios (the Sun) and the Okeanid, Perseis, which would make her the grand-daughter of Okeanos (Ocean). Kirke was also the sister of king Aietes (Aeetes) of Kolchis (Colchis).

On her island ... in her palace ... Kirke waits for lost sailors to come wandering to her door as supplicants. Normally, a traveler is treated as a special guest but with Kirke, travelers are drugged and turned into animals to serve her as she sees fit.
This is the land where the Jason and his Argonaughts stole the golden fleece and the princess from.

The first three of pics are of Abhazians, one cannot get more Caucasian than that, the last pic is that of Kirke as they the Greeks imagined her, but the term and the area have been misused by white supremacist to promote the idea of a pristine white origin devoid of any so-called "race" mixing, boy they could't have been more wrong, the first mention in written record we have of the folks in that area spoke of an entire nation of non white folks living in living there, this was done by the Greek historian Herodotus, whose job was to survey that area for his king, he thought they looked and acted suspiciously like Nile valley folks, they were a Black and woolly haired folks that circumcised their males, and weave their linen according to Egyptian fashion, he asked them about their seemingly out of place in an area that should be a sea of white people, they informed him that they descended from an Egyptian army centuries earlier under one of the Senuret kings, he asked the same question on his arrival in Egypt about this lost colony and he got a meh! reply that an earlier king had set out to conquer Asia and that they either abandoned their mission or was settled there as a colony.

www.jstor.org...
Saint Jerome, writing during the fourth century, called Colchis the "Second Ethiopia." Two hundred years later, Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem, described an "Ethiopian" presence in the same region.

Now this does not mean that the folks above are descendants of misplaced Egyptians they might have been descendants of Turkish soldiers that found a home there, just that you can't take anything for granted.
edit on 31-10-2016 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

Yes, they are! You're not the only one I have heard this from, and I know for a fact that New York City is full of Yankee rednecks. Your experiences point out what I am saying: it is culture, not nationality, that determines who and what someone is. Skin color is irrelevant, and descriptors for skin color are even more so. I'm sure if I traveled to deepest, darkest Africa, I would meet folks that think and act a lot like me.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Actually, its kind of heart warming to know that's the case, isn't it. We Rednecks are a world wide culture. We should set up an international network!



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Scandinavian/slavic here; stop being so sensitive.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: JesusXst
a reply to: 3danimator2014

With all due respect, it does bother me when people 'mis label' me. A bit racist of you isn't it, to expect me not to speak out about this when there are other colored people speaking out for their heritage.

Or are the only ones allowed to speak out about their heritage those from the BLM movement and illegal immigrants? Then it's ok right?



Did I say ANYTHING about what you just mentioned? No. I didn't. But your whiny reply to me says it all.

Personally, I think it's ridiculous to be proud of something you had zero control or influence over, namely your skin colour and where you come from. And yes, I do think that about proud blacks too. Happy?



its obvious this is what this thread was all about; it was never about lineage, or anthropology.

waaa


Of course it is..."but black people do it!!!' Lol



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: peskyhumans

originally posted by: digital01anarchy
Additionally, we now know our species first appeared in Africa, so the biology isn’t any good either.

Lol the out of africa theory is a theory not proven fact. It is not racist. LOL pretty soon black history revisionist will say its racist that most of white population had colored eyes and blond hair and that in actuality it was always black people to have blue eyes and blond hair first.


Blue eyes are a recessive trait, while brown eyes are a dominate trait. If one parent has blue eyes and the other has brown eyes, the child will have brown eyes. Whites are the only race with blue or green eyes. How can whites have originated in Africa when Africans don't have blue eyes? How does this explain whites having blue eyes?

The same with blonde and red hair. Whites are the only race with blonde and red hair.

You can't say it came from Neanderthal, because studies have shown that Asians also have Neanderthal DNA. Whites just have a slightly higher concentration of it. Yet the vast majority of Asians have black hair and brown eyes.

Yet most posters here will say I'm racist, or ignorant, or "aliens".


Blue eyes are likely a mutation that occurred recently:


New research shows that people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor. Scientists have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6,000-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye color of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today.


LInk

This occurred after the most recent (proposed) Out of Africa migrations.

If one parent has blue eyes and one parent has brown eyes the child is certainly more likely to have brown eyes than blue, but if the brown eyed parent carries a recessive gene for blue eyes, you may not know without a DNA test, because the dominant brown eyed trait covers the blue eyes. So the child of the respectively blue eyed and brown eyed parents may still have blue eyes. I have brown eyes but carry two genes for light eyes. Finally, eye color is not always so simple as recessive/dominant, it is polygenic.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

We kinda already have. I've noticed that rednecks can tell other rednecks from a pretty good distance.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: redhorse

That doesn't make any sense. If they can prove genetically that there is 1 ancestor where blue eyes originated, and that gene is recessive, then that 1 person mating with all the brown eyed people in the world would see his mutation vanish after only a few generations. The trait just wouldn't take off.

However if we assume that humanity originated in Europe, and that humans started with these recessive traits and then acquired more dominant traits (such as brown eyes) as they migrated elsewhere, the relatively large population of Europeans with blue eyes makes sense.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: peskyhumans
a reply to: redhorse

That doesn't make any sense. If they can prove genetically that there is 1 ancestor where blue eyes originated, and that gene is recessive, then that 1 person mating with all the brown eyed people in the world would see his mutation vanish after only a few generations. The trait just wouldn't take off.

However if we assume that humanity originated in Europe, and that humans started with these recessive traits and then acquired more dominant traits (such as brown eyes) as they migrated elsewhere, the relatively large population of Europeans with blue eyes makes sense.


You have it completely backwards. Your mind is made up and there is no explaining it to you.




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join