Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with most of your comments with one exception.
What race do you consider the Arabs from Ethiopia, Sudan, Yemen, and Somalia?
I'm with you on Human race idea!
The fundamental problem with "race" is... what standard do we use? If we go the scientific way, based on migration, everybody belongs to human race, and look different because of evolutionary effects (darker skin closer to the equator, and lighter as we move away from it). Then there's Biblical version, which too speaks of human origin as one race (unless there was more than one Adam and Eve pair). Later, we see reference to, for example Semites. They are descendents of Shem and today we identify them as Jews and Arabs.
So, do we stick to skin color, instead? But then, a Caucasian/White family tree will tend to have darker skin at leaf level after several generations if it chooses to live in warmer/sunnier climates. Will they, then, be just Caucasian (like Indians) or non-Caucasian like Africans, or somewhere in between?
Even among Indians, historians suggest two major races: Aryans (North Indians) and Dravidians (South Indians). And Iranian populace is also considered Aryan (as is most of the Indo-Persian stretch).
Besides color of the skin, religions also seem to play a role now. Arabs are defaulted to Islam (although, a vast population is Christian, and was in fact one of the first populace to adopt Christianity).
I would say, culture is probably the single most reliable way to differentiate. But them, like skin color, culture also evolves and new cultures come up.
The fundamental problem with "race" is... what standard do we use? If we go the scientific way, based on migration, everybody belongs to human race, and look different because of evolutionary effects (darker skin closer to the equator, and lighter as we move away from it). Then there's Biblical version, which too speaks of human origin as one race (unless there was more than one Adam and Eve pair). Later, we see reference to, for example Semites. They are descendents of Shem and today we identify them as Jews and Arabs.
So, do we stick to skin color, instead? But then, a Caucasian/White family tree will tend to have darker skin at leaf level after several generations if it chooses to live in warmer/sunnier climates. Will they, then, be just Caucasian (like Indians) or non-Caucasian like Africans, or somewhere in between?
Even among Indians, historians suggest two major races: Aryans (North Indians) and Dravidians (South Indians). And Iranian populace is also considered Aryan (as is most of the Indo-Persian stretch).
Besides color of the skin, religions also seem to play a role now. Arabs are defaulted to Islam (although, a vast population is Christian, and was in fact one of the first populace to adopt Christianity).
I would say, culture is probably the single most reliable way to differentiate. But them, like skin color, culture also evolves and new cultures come up.
Hence... human race.
Interesting!
Don't get me wrong!!
I'm not debating you at all, what you say is true.
I also believe the vitamin D theory of how we as humans migrated to the Asiatic plain.
I personally believe that 3 Races developed all the Colors on Earth, starting with the Negroid, then the Mongoloid and later Caucausoid.
Look at the Asian path starting from Africa through the Middle East into India through Burma, Thailand, Vietnam.
Majortiy of the people from that lowerside of Asia are dark and the Asian to the North are lighter, as they migrated towards the Caucausoid mountains near Mongolia their feature began to change into the modern day Caucasian.
I agree with you that we are one race with many differences.
I was under the impression many Arab-Americans self-classified themselves as White anyway. Am I wrong?
Well I will say the one good thing about these type of discussions is that they shine light on how dumb many of our racial classifications are. The whole thing is very subjective.
First off, I know the term Arab is controversial in itself, and I've come across a number of Lebanese, Syrians, and Egyptians who don't consider themselves Arabs but rather descendents of Phoenicians and such. However, going by US Census definition, we'll include them as Arabs.
My question is why doesn't American society accept Arabs to be part of the White race? Is it because they're tanned? And if so, why do Italians and Greeks classify as White but Arabs do not? Either way, 2/3 of the Arabs in this country are Lebanese and Syrian, they're fully assimilated, Christians, and some are blonde/blue eyed. John Sununu (Bush Sr.'s Chief of Staff), Tony Shalhoub (aka Monk), Doug Flutie, Michael E. Debakey are of Lebanese descent and they could all pass for any American of any European ancestry.
My father tells me this has increased since 9/11. Pre-9/11, many considered Arabs, in particular Lebanese and Syrians, to be White. Then after it, some people in the country just wanted to single us out, as "Arab Americans."
Thoughts?
Why is there such a need for people to want to be included as white?
Why don't Arabs want to be included as being black?
This is what I don't understand. The outflow of genetic information was out of Africa, not out of Europe.
Why the preoccupation with identifying as a race at all?
Why not simply be American of Middle Eastern descent?
Once people get used to the idea that there is no such thing as race the better off we will all be.
It is unfortunate that the government loves to reinforce this class struggle in the manner of "race" in American culture.
I'm not debating you at all, what you say is true.
I also believe the vitamin D theory of how we as humans migrated to the Asiatic plain.
I personally believe that 3 Races developed all the Colors on Earth, starting with the Negroid, then the Mongoloid and later Caucausoid.
Look at the Asian path starting from Africa through the Middle East into India through Burma, Thailand, Vietnam.
Majortiy of the people from that lowerside of Asia are dark and the Asian to the North are lighter, as they migrated towards the Caucausoid mountains near Mongolia their feature began to change into the modern day Caucasian.
I agree with you that we are one race with many differences.
Linnaeus was wrong about classifying humans in that way.
You have to place Linnaeus on a shelf with 18th century science.
With taxonomy he was correct, but with regard to humans you cannot use his limited knowledge about genetics and anthropology and apply that to science in the 21st century.
Quote:
"Race" is a historically constructed idea, invented to lend a patina of moral authority to the assertion of European superiority.
In addition to these categories, Linnaeus also suggested there were some more miscellaneous ones that occurred: "'wild men,' dwarfs, troglodytes [cave dwellers], and 'lazy Patagonians' [South American hunter-gatherers]."Therefore, being the most civilized of the Homo sapiens, the Europeaus was obviously the most superior type in Charles Linnaeus's view.
This problem of race is something that has been ingrained in American culture since slavery. It wasn't always a constituent part of American culture to be considered a "race" over being considered an "individual".
Why do you think it is so important for Middle Easterners to be seen as being "white"?
Why is the standard of "whiteness" the measure for acceptance?
First off, I know the term Arab is controversial in itself, and I've come across a number of Lebanese, Syrians, and Egyptians who don't consider themselves Arabs but rather descendents of Phoenicians and such. However, going by US Census definition, we'll include them as Arabs.
My question is why doesn't American society accept Arabs to be part of the White race? Is it because they're tanned? And if so, why do Italians and Greeks classify as White but Arabs do not? Either way, 2/3 of the Arabs in this country are Lebanese and Syrian, they're fully assimilated, Christians, and some are blonde/blue eyed. John Sununu (Bush Sr.'s Chief of Staff), Tony Shalhoub (aka Monk), Doug Flutie, Michael E. Debakey are of Lebanese descent and they could all pass for any American of any European ancestry.
My father tells me this has increased since 9/11. Pre-9/11, many considered Arabs, in particular Lebanese and Syrians, to be White. Then after it, some people in the country just wanted to single us out, as "Arab Americans."
Thoughts?
The US Census attempts to break the population into groups for demographic purposes. There is no way that everyone can accurately be included and some are grouped together that my not necessarily belong. They're trying to capture information on 300 million people with endless possible classifications. When responding to the census, it is up to the person to decide which category fits them. If Lebanese, Syrians, and Egyptians do not consider themselves Arabs, they're free to respond as white or other if they wish. It's up to them.
There was a US Supreme Court case in the early 20th century that classified Syrians, Lebanese, and Palestinians as "white" while Arabs from the Gulf region were not considered "white". Keep in mind those were very racist times.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
