“negro” and “Caucasian” vs “black” and “white”

[Homo Insapiens]

No racism or prejudice intended here, just trying to be technical. But if you see any offense at this topic then I think you have a tendency to be close-minded.

The words “negro” and “colored” were for centuries proper, formal and unoffending terms for their respective populations, “black” was always just a secondary term for them, but since the 1960’s, and the process complete by the 1980’s, they, especially the word “negro”, have come to take a strong taboo status in society over the past few decades. Why? Simply because they were associate with America’s history of racism? That doesn’t mean that they have to be associated with racism worldwide. Instead of cleaning the word, they had to throw it away altogether from the English language. It doesn’t seem likely that those terms will ever enter the English language again.
The word “negro” had equivalents in other European languages, notably “negre” in French, “neger” in Germanic languages, “negr” in Slavic languages, but like with English, those once formal terms have become taboo in those languages and doesn’t look like they’re entering their dictionaries again.

Even the word “Indian”, which has equivalents in other European languages, notably “Indien” in French, “Indios” in Spanish and “Indiaan” in Dutch, which like “negro” and it’s equivalents were used for centuries, was minded enough to get replaced with the term “Native American” in order to be technical, but not “negro” and “black”

It seems that people have been brainwashed to think of “negro” as a bad and offensive word

Are the terms “negro” and “Caucasian” more accurate than the much more common terms “black” and “white”?

Why are only negroes called “black” and caucasians called “white” when some Indians/South Asians can be just as dark or even darker than the majority of “blacks”, some asians can be as light as or even lighter than the majority of “whites”, some “whites” can be significantly darker than the majority of Asians, some “blacks” can be almost as light as the majority of “whites”

Some people say that you should let people be identified by how they would like to be, which seems to be the the trend among ethnicities around the world now. But I think that to only identify negroes “black” is to try to copyright it, when some south asians can be just as dark or even darker than the majority of “negroes”

My opinions:

Negroes aren’t really black, or at least rarely, and caucasians aren’t really white, or at least rarely

It’s possible for some Indians/South Asian Caucasoids to be much darker than the vast majority of negroes, and it’s possible for some Asians to be much paler than the vast majority of caucasians. I’ve seen some literally black Indians, and some literally white Asians before.

The binary “black” and “white” likely has its origins in the original binary race society of America, which has so much influence on the rest of the world.

What are your opinions?

[Creoda]

I prefer Black and White. Plain English. I have nothing to do with the Caucasus area, and negro is just black in Latin.

Only thing is that White identity is often deconstructed and Black identity never, despite Whites being much more racially pure in the West.

[Adrianv2]

Black and White have been flipped into "political identities", not racial. As an example CRT Marxist are against Blacks "assimilating" to whatever white culture is. That would make them non "authentic". But they never explain what blackness is. They are also against integration and equal application of laws. Because when this happens the Cultural Marxists lose all political power. The Marxists are against the Civil Rights laws and all constitutional principles. Similar to the ending of the Communist Manifesto which is in essence burn everything down and trust us. "They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.

Good breakdown of this topic here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rDu_VUpoJ8

[Homo Insapiens]

I prefer Black and White. Plain English. I have nothing to do with the Caucasus area, and negro is just black in Latin.

Only thing is that White identity is often deconstructed and Black identity never, despite Whites being much more racially pure in the West.

What about black Indians and white/pale Asians?
As well as albino negroes, what would they be called now, “white blacks?”
Can negroes ever be lighter skinned than caramel without being mixed?
Yeah it seems that the only alternative to “white” is “Caucasian” which isn’t very accurate either is it.
There’s “westerner”, but that can include people of non-white ancestry now.
Wonder how well the term “Europid” would work.
You can read about the origin of the word “Caucasian” here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race
Actually, “negro” is black in Spanish and Portuguese, “Niger” is black in Latin.
“Negro” and it’s equivalents in other European languages actually developed from the original Spanish and Portuguese word for black to mean specifically people of African descent, and possibly Melanesians as well (because they’ve sometimes been referred to as “Oceanic Negroes” in some old anthropological literature). But I don’t think Indians no matter how dark would ever have been called “negro”

What do you mean by your second paragraph?

I notice that your from Australia. I’ve actually lived in Perth before. Great place I think.
Do you know whether Australian aboriginals were ever called “negroes” and “colored”?
I can’t seem to find any evidence of it, it seems they were always referred to as “aboriginal” and “black”, is that true?

[Creoda]

What about black Indians and white/pale Asians?
As well as albino negroes, what would they be called now, “white blacks?”
Can negroes ever be lighter skinned than caramel without being mixed?
Yeah it seems that the only alternative to “white” is “Caucasian” which isn’t very accurate either is it.
There’s “westerner”, but that can include people of non-white ancestry now.
Actually, “negro” is black in Spanish and Portuguese, “Niger” is black in Latin.
“Negro” and it’s equivalents in other European languages actually developed from the original Spanish and Portuguese word for black to mean specifically people of African descent, and possibly Melanesians as well (because they’ve sometimes been referred to as “Oceanic Negroes” in some old anthropological literature). But I don’t think Indians no matter how dark would ever have been called “negro”

What do you mean by your second paragraph?

I notice that your from Australia. I’ve actually lived in Perth before. Great place I think.
Do you know whether Australian aboriginals were ever called “negroes”. I can’t seem to find any evidence of it, it seems they were always referred to as “aboriginal” and “black”
Indians are Indians and Asians Asians. I don't think many call them blacks these days and especially not White. The native black Indians/Andamanese etc are called negritos.

By my 2nd paragraph I mean that Black identifying people in the West are mixed with a lot more European/Caucasoid blood than Whites are mixed with non-Europeans. Whites are almost purely European/Caucasoid. Despite that White identity is often called into question academically and politically in a way that Black identity never is.

Aborigines are not called negroes, at least not today (I think negroes was associated with Africans). They have historically been called Black, and they identify themselves as Black, whatever one thinks of it. When the British first arrived here they actually called them Indians, as was common at the time.

[Uncle Sam]

I prefer Black and White. Plain English. I have nothing to do with the Caucasus area, and negro is just black in Latin.

Only thing is that White identity is often deconstructed and Black identity never, despite Whites being much more racially pure in the West.

I would argue that White's are not Racially Pure in the West. In America, the majority of people are mixed Whites-- mixed peoples of Europe. German, Polish, French, Irish, English, etc. I would argue that Europeans are more racially pure. Germany or England or France is more racially pure 'genetically' than an American would be who is combined of these bloodlines.

[Smitty]

"Negro" and "Caucasian" are, in my opinion, no more accurate than "black" and "white." "Negro" literally means "black." "Caucasian" seems to have its roots in some theory that the European peoples originated in the Caucasus. I don't know whether or not that's true, but I think the consensus today is otherwise.

I have no issue with any of the abovenamed terms. They seem to cause problems only for those who dislike the existence of biologically demonstrable races and who desire to "deconstruct" that reality. The reason South and East Asians don't have a place in this New World terminology is that Europeans didn't interact with them on the same level as they did with Amerindians and Africans. So while Indians can be very dark indeed, "black" was not generally used in reference to them. (Incidentally, I believe a handful of South Asians were enslaved and classed as "negroes" during America's slaveholding era.) East Asians were termed yellow, to the extent their color was considered at all. And I have found that latter classification to be quite accurate. Few, if any, East Asians have the ruddy undertones of Europeans.

ETA: Some favor just saying "European." I'm okay with that, although it seems to be a capitulation in the war of words, which I never like. But it is a very concise way to refer to the people generally considered white. It still has problems, though, since leftists cunningly dissociate identity from genetics. In their minds, Jews, gypsies, and Tatars (and indeed anyone from anywhere who wants to live in Europe) are Europeans too.

[sean]

Are the terms “negro” and “Caucasian” more accurate than the much more common terms “black” and “white”? Negroes aren’t really black, or at least rarely, and caucasians aren’t really white, or at least rarely. The binary “black” and “white” likely has its origins in the original binary race society of America, which has so much influence on the rest of the world. What are your opinions?

You are mentally retarded. The man who coined the term "Caucasian" to describe the related white European races (and not the brown sand people or brown south asians), thought Circassian women from the North Caucasus region were the best specimen of the white phenotype so he called it Caucasian.

Circassians hardly live there now though; they mostly dispersed to kebab lands and took up Islam and got fully browned. The reputation for the attractiveness of the Circassian women was actually made up by early western travellers to the region during the Middle Ages.

Negro is basically a generic term for any dark skinned people that got specifically attributed to Africans, it was African-Americans who invented the term ‘black’ in the 60's because they didn't like us calling them nigger or coloured. Got a problem with it, kvetch to Malcolm X and MLK lel.

Negro, Coloured, Porch monkey, Jungle bunny, Nig-nog have all become offensive, which indicated it's the negro behaviour that is offensive, not the word. If obese, which is a medical term, is offensive, then it the fatass behaviour that is offensive.


Why are only negroes called “black” and caucasians called “white” when some Indians/South Asians can be just as dark or even darker than the majority of “blacks”, some asians can be as light as or even lighter than the majority of “whites”, some “whites” can be significantly darker than the majority of Asians, some “blacks” can be almost as light as the majority of “whites”. It’s possible for some Indians/South Asian Caucasoids to be much darker than the vast majority of negroes, and it’s possible for some Asians to be much paler than the vast majority of caucasians. I’ve seen some literally black Indians, and some literally white Asians before.

South Asians are majority brown, majority of East Asians are not lighter than Europeans, it's a dumb anthrotard myth.

The word "Asian" means nothing other than a geographical location where 4+ BILLION people live with varying phenotypes ranging from slant-eyed Mongoloids to brown Dravidians to black Negritos. Even Southeast Asians are racially/ethnically categorised as Austronesians and not mainland 'Asians'.

The aboriginal line is a generic dead end, even worse than Africa.

https://i.imgur.com/LAHtyZj.png

The skin colour is not even the same. Compare the Sentinelese to Africans -- the Sentinelese seem to have a grey/black skintone vs. the very dark brown of the Africans. Even black nationalists in America never claim them as one of their own, they would rather cling to and claim as their own the superior culture of those who enslaved them (ancient Egyptians for instance).

Stop spamming your effortless threads, for once.

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?347849-Why-are-only-black-people-called-%93black%94-amp-white-people-called-%93white%94

Nobody gives a fuck about your "South Asians are literal niggers" threads, it's too repetitive.

[Komintasavalta]

The man who coined the term "Caucasian" to describe the related white European races (and not the brown sand people or brown south asians), thought Circassian women from the North Caucasus region were the best specimen of the white phenotype so he called it Caucasian.

Circassians hardly live there now though; they mostly dispersed to kebab lands and took up Islam and got fully browned. The reputation for the attractiveness of the Circassian women was actually made up by early western travellers to the region during the Middle Ages.

Maybe they were just freaks like SCARtem who were into Armenoid chicks. In the scheme of Meiners, the Caucasian race was contrasted to the Mongoloid race, and he saw races which he viewed as ugly as being Mongolized to various degrees. But Caucasians look more anti-Mongol than Northern Europeans do. For example Northern Europeans have weak body hair, which is a Mongol trait, but Meiners saw Caucasians as beautiful because of their strong body hair (https://books.google.com/books?id=prOSAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA80):


It was Meiners who divided the human kind into two races, the Caucasian and Mongolian, in his _Sketch for a History of Mankind_ [_Grundrif, der Geschichte der Menschheit_, 1786]. He only needed two primary categories; as Susanne Zantop observes, "Meiners makes clear that the world is, in fact, constituted by only two kinds of humans: the culturally superior, 'beautiful' ones - the Europeans - and all others who are 'mongolized' [mongolisiert] to varying degrees and hence 'ugly' and inferior - Asians, Africans, Americans." [81] As Zantop points out, Meiners did proceed, in voluminous later writings, to subdivide his races, a task that included the division of Europeans into an elaborate hierarchy, elevating the German "nation" over "ugly, effeminate Latin races." [82] But as long as Meiners treated the "beautiful" Europeans as a collective, he justified their identification with the Caucasus thusly: "Almost all of the Sagas and tales of ancient nations indicate that the human race originated on the Caucasus [mountain range] and the plains to the south of it. From here, the humans spread to all ends of the world." [83] Meiners further notes:

> The Caucasians are no longer very pure and unmixed in the Caucasus. The Caucasians, however, especially their women, are the most beautiful in the world. These nations and their offspring differ from the Mongolian nations through their height and the structure of their bodies, through a more beautiful facial formation and other body parts, through stronger hair growth and through nobility of spirit and heart. [84]

[...]

Those interested in racial difference had long noted the beauty of the Caucasians. In fact, in the earliest texts identified as engaging a "racial" division of peoples, descriptions included references to the particular beauty (and the white skin) of the women of the Caucasus, particularly the Circassians and Georgians, although the observations on Circassian and Georgian beauty appears in texts to be a digression - the men writing seem to get carried away, distracted by their own descriptions.

When Francois Bernier - a century before Blumenbach, Forster, and Meiners - wrote his "New Division of the Earth According to the Different Species or Races of Men" [_Nouvelle division de la terre par les différentes espéces ou races qui l'habitent_, 1684], it was the first text in which "race" functioned as a dominant classification scheme for the patterns of difference among human peoples and in it the beauty of those from the Caucasus region stood out. In fact, this text is one of the earliest sources to feed what will later develop and circulate throughout Europe as the legendary figure of the "Circassian beauty":

> It cannot be said that the native and aboriginal women of Persia are beautiful, but this does not prevent the city of Isfahan from being filled with an infinity of very handsome women, as well as very handsome men, in consequence of the great number of handsome slaves who are brought there from Georgia and Circassia.
>
> The Turks have also a great number of very handsome women; besides those of the country, who are by no means ugly, they have ... an immense quantity of slaves who come to them from Mingrelia, Georgia, and Circassia, where, according to all the Levantines and all the travellers, the handsomest women of the world are to be found. [85]

[...]

Bernier notes, after asserting that "the handsomest women of the world" are found in the Caucasus: "Thus the Christians and Jews are not allowed to buy a Circassian slave at Constantinople. They are reserved for the Turks alone." [86] The whitest and the most beautiful of women are at once identified with - and offered tantalizingly by the text as sexually off-limits to - any men but Muslims, which include the Europeans. At about the same time, Bernier's compatriot, Jean Chardin, wrote, in his Travels in Persia:

> The Complexion of the Georgians is the most beautiful in all the East; and I can safely say, That I never saw an ill-favour'd Countenance in all that Country, either of the one or other Sex: but I have seen those that have had Angels Faces; Nature having bestow'd upon the Women of that Country Graces and Geatures, which are not other where to be seen: So that 'tis impossible to behold 'em without falling in Love. [87]

[...]

The official naming of the white European's race as "Caucasian" is credited to Blumenbach, who first used the term in the 1795 edition of _De generis humani varietate nativa_. Blumenbach defended his nomenclature thus:

> 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 of mankind. [...] It is white in color, which we may fairly assume to have been the primitive colour of mankind, since ... it is very easy for that to degenerate into brown, but very much more difficult for dark to become white. [88]

While Blumenbach referred here generically to the Georgian "race of men," most narratives that were constructed and condensed and repeated by writers of all ilk attest specifically to the beauty of the women - these women who belonged to "wild, barbarian, heathen" tribes before their capture and conversion into Muslim harems. Even Blumenbach, when arguing that the "racial face" is mingled in instances of mixed-race breeding, offered as a typical example the blending of extremes, "the offspring of the Nogay Tartars is rendered more beautiful through unions with the Georgians." Similarly, in demonstrating that all humans belong to a single species based upon their ability to produce fertile offspring, he writes: "Take ... a man and a woman most widely different from each other; let the one be a most beautiful Circassian woman and the other an African born in Guinea, as black and ugly as possible." The point that he draws in each case - and that many other writers, including Chardin, also note with a striking matter-of-factness - is that the Caucasian women (specifically, the Circassians and Georgians) may be used (both actually and rhetorically) to "improve" less beautiful peoples.

I don't know if the stereotype of Circassians being beautiful originated in the Middle Ages like you said, because according to the quotation above, one of the earliest European texts which mentioned the stereotype was from the year 1684.

The image below shows the winners of the first international beauty contest in 1888, who look very Caucasian. All of them except the one in the top right corner have exaggerated Caucasoid-like features, like dead eyes, exposed upper eyelids, dark areas around the eyes, a small and weak facial skeleton, and unfirm facial soft tissue. Similar features are today viewed as desirable among wannabe-Caucasoid Koreans.

https://i.imgur.com/h0vMJrw.jpg
https://www.flickr.com/photos/punkmemory/8800365015
https://kulturologia.ru/blogs/190916/31411/

They look similar to these Circassians:

http://collection.kunstkamera.ru/api/spf/OfMRoqKrurw_8ta7ZmiB6wzdsR-oC3gv8HTNnJ1UanRUJ7DF0_WMvFlEQ3uUWKik.jpg?w=1000&h=1000
http://collection.kunstkamera.ru/en/entity/OBJECT/66664?ethnos=3508373&index=4

[Homo Insapiens]

Stop spamming your effortless threads, for once.

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?347849-Why-are-only-black-people-called-%93black%94-amp-white-people-called-%93white%94

Nobody gives a fuck about your "South Asians are literal niggers" threads, it's too repetitive.

Sorry for any inconvenience.
Why do you say “effortless”?
Sure, if you’d like.
I made a new thread because the old thread didn’t have any replies and seemed to be dead, I would delete that if I could but that option disappeared a while ago. Hopefully this thread is more detailed and elaborate. I’m not trying to argue South Asians being niggers or anything. Having grown up with Asians of all colors, I just can’t help feeling that the binary “white” and “black” to be reserved for negroes and Europids is very Eurocentric and narrow minded, not to mention exaggerated and rarely true. I’d prefer colors to be adjectives rather than nouns, and I think that’s how they used to be.
I’m not able to find anyone to discuss this in real life, so I was hoping I could do that online.

[Anglo-Celtic]

I would argue that White's are not Racially Pure in the West. In America, the majority of people are mixed Whites-- mixed peoples of Europe. German, Polish, French, Irish, English, etc. I would argue that Europeans are more racially pure. Germany or England or France is more racially pure 'genetically' than an American would be who is combined of these bloodlines.

Creoda was referring to race, not nationality. For instance, Black Americans are more mixed than White Americans, and I'm not talking about tribes. Most European Americans don't have a lot of Black genes or Native American genes, and the ones, that do, almost always have a tiny amount. The one drop rule is just for Louisiana.

[Anglo-Celtic]

I use the term, "colored people", to trigger PC people. When they complain, I refer them to a Black conservative economist named Walter Williams. He mocked the term, "people of color", when he referred to his jeans of blue. In real life, I don't use either term, because they sound either antiquated or ridiculous.

[sean]

Maybe they were just freaks like SCARtem who were into Armenoid chicks.

SCARtem is actually a Mari dude with a Taurid nose lel.


In the scheme of Meiners, the Caucasian race was contrasted to the Mongoloid race, and he saw races which he viewed as ugly as being Mongolized to various degrees. But Caucasians look more anti-Mongol than Northern Europeans do. For example Northern Europeans have weak body hair, which is a Mongol trait, but Meiners saw Caucasians as beautiful because of their strong body hair (https://books.google.com/books?id=prOSAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA80):


It was Meiners who divided the human kind into two races, the Caucasian and Mongolian, in his _Sketch for a History of Mankind_ [_Grundrif, der Geschichte der Menschheit_, 1786]. He only needed two primary categories; as Susanne Zantop observes, "Meiners makes clear that the world is, in fact, constituted by only two kinds of humans: the culturally superior, 'beautiful' ones - the Europeans - and all others who are 'mongolized' [mongolisiert] to varying degrees and hence 'ugly' and inferior - Asians, Africans, Americans." [81] As Zantop points out, Meiners did proceed, in voluminous later writings, to subdivide his races, a task that included the division of Europeans into an elaborate hierarchy, elevating the German "nation" over "ugly, effeminate Latin races." [82] But as long as Meiners treated the "beautiful" Europeans as a collective, he justified their identification with the Caucasus thusly: "Almost all of the Sagas and tales of ancient nations indicate that the human race originated on the Caucasus [mountain range] and the plains to the south of it. From here, the humans spread to all ends of the world." [83] Meiners further notes:

> The Caucasians are no longer very pure and unmixed in the Caucasus. The Caucasians, however, especially their women, are the most beautiful in the world. These nations and their offspring differ from the Mongolian nations through their height and the structure of their bodies, through a more beautiful facial formation and other body parts, through stronger hair growth and through nobility of spirit and heart. [84]

[...]

Those interested in racial difference had long noted the beauty of the Caucasians. In fact, in the earliest texts identified as engaging a "racial" division of peoples, descriptions included references to the particular beauty (and the white skin) of the women of the Caucasus, particularly the Circassians and Georgians, although the observations on Circassian and Georgian beauty appears in texts to be a digression - the men writing seem to get carried away, distracted by their own descriptions.

When Francois Bernier - a century before Blumenbach, Forster, and Meiners - wrote his "New Division of the Earth According to the Different Species or Races of Men" [_Nouvelle division de la terre par les différentes espéces ou races qui l'habitent_, 1684], it was the first text in which "race" functioned as a dominant classification scheme for the patterns of difference among human peoples and in it the beauty of those from the Caucasus region stood out. In fact, this text is one of the earliest sources to feed what will later develop and circulate throughout Europe as the legendary figure of the "Circassian beauty":

> It cannot be said that the native and aboriginal women of Persia are beautiful, but this does not prevent the city of Isfahan from being filled with an infinity of very handsome women, as well as very handsome men, in consequence of the great number of handsome slaves who are brought there from Georgia and Circassia.
>
> The Turks have also a great number of very handsome women; besides those of the country, who are by no means ugly, they have ... an immense quantity of slaves who come to them from Mingrelia, Georgia, and Circassia, where, according to all the Levantines and all the travellers, the handsomest women of the world are to be found. [85]

[...]

Bernier notes, after asserting that "the handsomest women of the world" are found in the Caucasus: "Thus the Christians and Jews are not allowed to buy a Circassian slave at Constantinople. They are reserved for the Turks alone." [86] The whitest and the most beautiful of women are at once identified with - and offered tantalizingly by the text as sexually off-limits to - any men but Muslims, which include the Europeans. At about the same time, Bernier's compatriot, Jean Chardin, wrote, in his Travels in Persia:

> The Complexion of the Georgians is the most beautiful in all the East; and I can safely say, That I never saw an ill-favour'd Countenance in all that Country, either of the one or other Sex: but I have seen those that have had Angels Faces; Nature having bestow'd upon the Women of that Country Graces and Geatures, which are not other where to be seen: So that 'tis impossible to behold 'em without falling in Love. [87]

[...]

The official naming of the white European's race as "Caucasian" is credited to Blumenbach, who first used the term in the 1795 edition of _De generis humani varietate nativa_. Blumenbach defended his nomenclature thus:

> 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 of mankind. [...] It is white in color, which we may fairly assume to have been the primitive colour of mankind, since ... it is very easy for that to degenerate into brown, but very much more difficult for dark to become white. [88]

While Blumenbach referred here generically to the Georgian "race of men," most narratives that were constructed and condensed and repeated by writers of all ilk attest specifically to the beauty of the women - these women who belonged to "wild, barbarian, heathen" tribes before their capture and conversion into Muslim harems. Even Blumenbach, when arguing that the "racial face" is mingled in instances of mixed-race breeding, offered as a typical example the blending of extremes, "the offspring of the Nogay Tartars is rendered more beautiful through unions with the Georgians." Similarly, in demonstrating that all humans belong to a single species based upon their ability to produce fertile offspring, he writes: "Take ... a man and a woman most widely different from each other; let the one be a most beautiful Circassian woman and the other an African born in Guinea, as black and ugly as possible." The point that he draws in each case - and that many other writers, including Chardin, also note with a striking matter-of-factness - is that the Caucasian women (specifically, the Circassians and Georgians) may be used (both actually and rhetorically) to "improve" less beautiful peoples.

TL;DR


I don't know if the stereotype of Circassians being beautiful originated in the Middle Ages like you said, because according to the quotation above, one of the earliest European texts which mentioned the stereotype was from the year 1684.

The "Circassian beauty" stereotype had its roots in the Middle Ages. It's exotic orientalism from the past. A western-normative construct.


The image below shows the winners of the first international beauty contest in 1888, who look very Caucasian.

https://i.imgur.com/h0vMJrw.jpg

They look similar to these Circassians:

http://collection.kunstkamera.ru/api/spf/OfMRoqKrurw_8ta7ZmiB6wzdsR-oC3gv8HTNnJ1UanRUJ7DF0_WMvFlEQ3uUWKik.jpg?w=1000&h=1000

They look nothing alike. Save your autism for later.


Why do you say “effortless”?

You've been spamming this same concept in several threads every day for weeks. I've seen you around. You trolls do realise that spamming 50 threads on the same thing will make the impact less not more, right?


Having grown up with Asians of all colors, I just can’t help feeling that the binary “white” and “black” to be reserved for negroes and Europids is very Eurocentric and narrow minded, not to mention exaggerated and rarely true. I’d prefer colors to be adjectives rather than nouns, and I think that’s how they used to be.

Well, you don't live in the west, racial divisions have always existed since time immemorial, the remnant of prehistoric tribalism writ large, so this isn't new. Human discrimination knows no bounds, and there are many cases of entrenched prejudice within non-Western ethnic and national groups as well.

Have fun chasing your own tail.


I’m not able to find anyone to discuss this in real life, so I was hoping I could do that online.

You live in Asia, why do you feel the need to stick your nose in other country's affairs?

[Homo Insapiens]

I thought this was an anthropology forum…anthropologists talk about racial matters, which includes among other things comparing people.

I’m no troll. Not trying to be.
I haven’t made 50 threads about this everyday for weeks.
I’ve only made 1 or 2 other threads about this so far.
Which haven’t had much responses.
Maybe 1 or 2 extra from that which I made by mistake by putting in the wrong section, not being able to delete it later.
And they’re all probably deeply buried by other threads by now, forgotten and barely or never noticed.

[sean]

I haven’t made 50 threads about this everyday for weeks. I’ve only made 1 or 2 other threads about this so far. Maybe 1 or 2 extra from that which I made by mistake by putting in the wrong section, not being able to delete it later. And they’re all probably deeply buried by other threads by now, forgotten and barely or never noticed.

I think you've posted this thread enough times already, you need to find a new hobby.

https://i.imgur.com/Utxl6L1.jpg


I thought this was an anthropology forum…anthropologists talk about racial matters, which includes among other things comparing people.

But you are here only to compare South Asians with negroes, and challenging the black/white racial divisions. The lack of self awareness with your kind is staggering.

https://i.imgur.com/nIXNW8S.jpg

[Homo Insapiens]

I forgot to mention or emphasise. My point was that people would rarely if ever call or describe a caramel or brown colored bird, leaf, flower, fruit, dog, cat, shoes, jacket, even hair and eye color or any other object as black would they? Why so different with people?

[JamesBond007]

I would argue that White's are not Racially Pure in the West. In America, the majority of people are mixed Whites-- mixed peoples of Europe. German, Polish, French, Irish, English, etc. I would argue that Europeans are more racially pure. Germany or England or France is more racially pure 'genetically' than an American would be who is combined of these bloodlines.

Depends on the individual and the mix in question and as far as demographics are concerned you would have to DNA test all American 'whites' to know. The English and Germans are mutts themselves they are not Swedish (even Swedes are somewhat mutts on a genetic if not phenotypic level). The English are mutts a mix of Iron Age Britons and Germanics largely and the Germans have French and slavic floating around mixed in. An Amerian who is a mix of Irish, English and German could very well approximate middle England. An American who is Dutch, English and Polish could approximate German etc...

[Smitty]

I forgot to mention or emphasise. My point was that people would rarely if ever call or describe a caramel or brown colored bird, leaf, flower, fruit, dog, cat, shoes, jacket, even hair and eye color or any other object as black would they? Why so different with people?

I think you're deliberately being a bit obtuse. West Africans are very nearly black-colored. And to Europeans who first interacted with them, the contrast would certainly have made them seem black. It is a small wonder that they came to be known as such. In the halcyon days of pre-globalism, two colors was enough. The English language didn't need a million different words to appease all the different shades of brown that exist in the world.

[Homo Insapiens]

…….

[Homo Insapiens]

I think you're deliberately being a bit obtuse. West Africans are very nearly black-colored. And to Europeans who first interacted with them, the contrast would certainly have made them seem black. It is a small wonder that they came to be known as such. In the halcyon days of pre-globalism, two colors was enough. The English language didn't need a million different words to appease all the different shades of brown that exist in the world.

I’m not trying to be obtuse. I’m trying to be logical. At the heart of this really isn’t about race or ethnicity or anything of that sort, it’s about logic and reason. I’m actually no expert on anthropology whatsoever. I’m just trying to shed light on something I’ve always found illogical as a lay person.

Africans can be very nearly black-colored. So can some South Asian caucasoids. Yet they aren’t called and known as “black people”, only people of African and Australasian descent are called and known as that, it has become synonymous with them.

People of African descent came to be called “black” in Spanish and Portuguese, which is “negro”, in which they still are, but in English and some other European languages, they came to be called something distinct, “negroes” and it’s equivalent in other European languages, though never in Spanish and Portuguese curiously, from which the term is derived from their term for the color black, despite the fact that the negroes would’ve been very dark back then to them, and there wouldn’t have been knowledge of south Asian black Caucasoids, the colonists were still sensible enough to not name a noun after an adjective. English “negro” and it’s equivalents in some other European languages are distinct from Spanish and Portuguese “negro”, which just means the color black for them, but in English and some other European languages, it does not refer to any color, it came to distinctly not mean a color but to mean a distinct race, those possessing negroid features.

Some Africans, like some South Sudanese Nilotics, are apparently literally black, something I’m not sure yet whether is possible among South Asians, but most Africans aren’t very nearly black-colored, at least to my observations of them in photos, videos and in person, and many are very light shades of brown, yet are still called and known as “black people”. Unmixed people of African descent tend to be on average darker than people of South Asian descent, but there is a lot of overlap both ways.

It’s like if there were Smurfs and Na’vi, only one of those groups got to be called “blue”, “blue people”, and their original name became taboo and politically incorrect, but the other doesn’t get to be called “blue people”, so when people say “blue people” and “blue person” it excludes the other group, despite the fact that they can be very blue.

About the term “negro”, if it’s so offensive to some people, look, if there was another term used to exclusively refer to people of African and Australasian descent, that is, people who have dark skins and curly hair, I would be happy to latch on to it instead of “negro”, but alas, there isn’t, and doesn’t look like there’ll ever be anytime soon, which is why I must resort to “negro”

The advantage the term “negro” had is that it only referred to people of African and Australasian descent, when South Asians can be very dark as well, and didn’t refer to color, when many “black people” can be very light.

I’m not actually entirely sure why the term “negro” has become so taboo and offensive in modern times. There doesn’t appear to be any clear reason why. The only thing I can see is that it’s somehow associated with America’s history of racism, but that doesn’t say very much. To me, to be offended by this term is a clear example of mindless automatic brainwashing.
Before the term became outdated, it was always used as a neutral non-pejorative term, just as terms for other ethnicities are. “Negro” was by no means a pejorative term, and by no means intended to look down on them.
Whoever were responsible for getting rid of “negro” and replacing it with “black”, clearly they didn’t have south asians in mind. After all, people of South Asian descent had very little to do with America’s and the West’s history, in contrast to people of African descent, and most of the world follows the west.

Btw in my native language it’s still perfectly acceptable to say “negro”, and in fact my native language doesn’t have adjective term for races like how English does.

Apparently, people of European descent were called “white people” throughout the duration that people of African descent were called “negroes”, rather illogical and disappointing to me.

About Sean’s comments, I’m certainly no troll. I’m not trying to argue for anything like “Indians are niggers”. Because the darkest Indians are rarely found overseas, and for some reason there’s barely any photos of them online, and the fact that they don’t seem to be common nowadays, I’m trying to illustrate how dark they can be, in order to be able to argue how illogical it is that only negroes are called “black”.

About Sean’s point on me making 50 threads about this topic, I may have made many other posts relating to colored people, for they often are in my interests, but only this thread, along with maybe like one or two others, are about this very topic, that is, “negro vs black and Caucasian vs white” if that makes sense. I made threads inquiring about Indian skin colour in order to conduct research on this topic, because I’m not familiar with south Asians, I’m trying to see if South Asians can corroborate whether Indians can be very nearly black, or if it’s just my observational errors.

If these facts can be established, then I can’t see why anyone would disagree that it’s rather illogical to call only negroes “black people” when: 1. They’re not usually literally black 2. They’re often very light 3. South Asian Caucasoids can be as dark as very nearly black.

So why are only negroes called “black people”?
Eurocentrism/Westerncentrism?

[Homo Insapiens]

Why the hell is there double post when I only did it once? Doesn’t look like I can delete either. I’ll just continue editing the second one and ignore the first one then.

[Homo Insapiens]

People who have seen very dark south Asians, as well as very light East Asians, before, what are your opinions on this matter?

[Homo Insapiens]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nRB9P40Wjak

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GQr8-f0OLXY

[Smitty]

I’m not trying to be obtuse. I’m trying to be logical. At the heart of this really isn’t about race or ethnicity or anything of that sort, it’s about logic and reason. I’m actually no expert on anthropology whatsoever. I’m just trying to shed light on something I’ve always found illogical as a lay person.

Africans can be very nearly black-colored. So can some South Asian caucasoids. Yet they aren’t called and known as “black people”, only people of African and Australasian descent are called and known as that, it has become synonymous with them.

People of African descent came to be called “black” in Spanish and Portuguese, which is “negro”, in which they still are, but in English and some other European languages, they came to be called something distinct, “negroes” and it’s equivalent in other European languages, though never in Spanish and Portuguese curiously, from which the term is derived from their term for the color black, despite the fact that the negroes would’ve been very dark back then to them, and there wouldn’t have been knowledge of south Asian black Caucasoids, the colonists were still sensible enough to not name a noun after an adjective. English “negro” and it’s equivalents in some other European languages are distinct from Spanish and Portuguese “negro”, which just means the color black for them, but in English and some other European languages, it does not refer to any color, it came to distinctly not mean a color but to mean a distinct race, those possessing negroid features.

Some Africans, like some South Sudanese Nilotics, are apparently literally black, something I’m not sure yet whether is possible among South Asians, but most Africans aren’t very nearly black-colored, at least to my observations of them in photos, videos and in person, and many are very light shades of brown, yet are still called and known as “black people”. Unmixed people of African descent tend to be on average darker than people of South Asian descent, but there is a lot of overlap both ways.

It’s like if there were Smurfs and Na’vi, only one of those groups got to be called “blue”, “blue people”, and their original name became taboo and politically incorrect, but the other doesn’t get to be called “blue people”, so when people say “blue people” and “blue person” it excludes the other group, despite the fact that they can be very blue.

About the term “negro”, if it’s so offensive to some people, look, if there was another term used to exclusively refer to people of African and Australasian descent, that is, people who have dark skins and curly hair, I would be happy to latch on to it instead of “negro”, but alas, there isn’t, and doesn’t look like there’ll ever be anytime soon, which is why I must resort to “negro”

The advantage the term “negro” had is that it only referred to people of African and Australasian descent, when South Asians can be very dark as well, and didn’t refer to color, when many “black people” can be very light.

I’m not actually entirely sure why the term “negro” has become so taboo and offensive in modern times. There doesn’t appear to be any clear reason why. The only thing I can see is that it’s somehow associated with America’s history of racism, but that doesn’t say very much. To me, to be offended by this term is a clear example of mindless automatic brainwashing.
Before the term became outdated, it was always used as a neutral non-pejorative term, just as terms for other ethnicities are. “Negro” was by no means a pejorative term, and by no means intended to look down on them.
Whoever were responsible for getting rid of “negro” and replacing it with “black”, clearly they didn’t have south asians in mind. After all, people of South Asian descent had very little to do with America’s and the West’s history, in contrast to people of African descent, and most of the world follows the west.

Btw in my native language it’s still perfectly acceptable to say “negro”, and in fact my native language doesn’t have adjective term for races like how English does.

Apparently, people of European descent were called “white people” throughout the duration that people of African descent were called “negroes”, rather illogical and disappointing to me.

About Sean’s comments, I’m certainly no troll. I’m not trying to argue for anything like “Indians are niggers”. Because the darkest Indians are rarely found overseas, and for some reason there’s barely any photos of them online, and the fact that they don’t seem to be common nowadays, I’m trying to illustrate how dark they can be, in order to be able to argue how illogical it is that only negroes are called “black”.

About Sean’s point on me making 50 threads about this topic, I may have made many other posts relating to colored people, for they often are in my interests, but only this thread, along with maybe like one or two others, are about this very topic, that is, “negro vs black and Caucasian vs white” if that makes sense. I made threads inquiring about Indian skin colour in order to conduct research on this topic, because I’m not familiar with south Asians, I’m trying to see if South Asians can corroborate whether Indians can be very nearly black, or if it’s just my observational errors.

If these facts can be established, then I can’t see why anyone would disagree that it’s rather illogical to call only negroes “black people” when: 1. They’re not usually literally black 2. They’re often very light 3. South Asian Caucasoids can be as dark as very nearly black.

So why are only negroes called “black people”?
Eurocentrism/Westerncentrism?

1. I already responded to. The fact that they are not literally black is as irrelevant as the fact that Europeans are not literally white. It is the striking contrast between the two races that led to, perhaps, exaggerated descriptors for them.

2. The ones Europeans dealt with first (West Africans) are among the darkest. Somalis and some other groups may be lighter, but they were not the ones Europeans interacted with first.

3. South Asians (who are not Caucasoids but a mix of Caucasoid and Australoid) can be nearly black. But the term had come into use with sole reference to Africans. I don't know which race Europeans came into contact with first, but Indians have been known as Indians probably since the time of Alexander the Great. Europeans have traded with them, indirectly at least, for a long time. You seem to have the idea that "black" as a term is a recent creation. It is not. George Washington used the term, for example (https://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/henriques/hist615/gwslav.htm). It is synonymous with "negro" (which has literally the same meaning in Spanish, as you acknowledge). Is it Eurocentrism that Englishmen didn't bother to think of Indians when forming their own language? Possibly, and that is wholly appropriate. Europeans should be Eurocentric, for that is how the world works. I sense you have an agenda, and it may be this very Eurocentrism that is your target.

[Homo Insapiens]

………

[Homo Insapiens]

1. I already responded to. The fact that they are not literally black is as irrelevant as the fact that Europeans are not literally white. It is the striking contrast between the two races that led to, perhaps, exaggerated descriptors for them.

2. The ones Europeans dealt with first (West Africans) are among the darkest. Somalis and some other groups may be lighter, but they were not the ones Europeans interacted with first.

3. South Asians (who are not Caucasoids but a mix of Caucasoid and Australoid) can be nearly black. But the term had come into use with sole reference to Africans. I don't know which race Europeans came into contact with first, but Indians have been known as Indians probably since the time of Alexander the Great. Europeans have traded with them, indirectly at least, for a long time. You seem to have the idea that "black" as a term is a recent creation. It is not. George Washington used the term, for example (https://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/henriques/hist615/gwslav.htm). It is synonymous with "negro" (which has literally the same meaning in Spanish, as you acknowledge). Is it Eurocentrism that Englishmen didn't bother to think of Indians when forming their own language? Possibly, and that is wholly appropriate. Europeans should be Eurocentric, for that is how the world works. I sense you have an agenda, and it may be this very Eurocentrism that is your target.

Yes you explain well why people of European, African and Australasian descent came to be called “white” and “black”, and it’s logical that they should come to be in binary race societies like colonial America and Australia where only one race is light and the other is dark. Since those terms are universally established now, the issue here is by doing that they exclude the other “white” and “black” people of the world, East and South Asians, it’s clearly because the West wasn’t thinking of Asians when they were forming their languages, they were only looking at their own societies, which is quite logical and not entirely blameable considering how much less globalised the world was, the difficulty of travel and the lack of photography back then.
Now the world is much more globalised and connected, but these old Eurocentric labels are still what the world follows.
I’ve always thought of people who use the term “white” and “black”, “did it ever occur to you that maybe negroes and caucasians aren’t the only white and black peoples in the world?”

I forgot to mention about your point on how “in the halcyon days of pre-globalism, two colors was enough. The English language didn't need a million different words to appease all the different shades of brown that exist in the world.”
Maybe, but the English language did have a bunch of terms for people of such descent, there was “negro”, “black”, “colored”, “mulatto”, “quadroon”, “octoroon”, “high yellow”, “yellow”, “zambo”, etc. all those terms are considered outdated or even offensive now, having been replaced with the term “black” and “biracial”. I’ll let you search up what those terms mean, there’s not enough space for me to explain here.

My native language doesn’t call races by colors, and I personally wouldn’t either, I think it’s highly exaggerated, but that’s just me.

In Malaysia, the Chinese might as well be called “white” and the Indians “black”, but they aren’t.
Actually, some old texts of colonial Singapore I’ve read describe Indians as “black”
One American, Charles Hendley, wrote about his visit to Singapore in 1922 that mentioned regarding the people “What surprised me most was the extreme black skins of some of the East Indians. They are as black as any of our negroes and what startles one is to hear them (a few about the hotels) speak in clear excellent English. Many of them have fine clear cut features.”
One American U.S. Navy Lieutenant, A. W. Habersham, wrote about his visit to singapore in 1854 that mentioned “While Stevens and myself were stepping into a sampan to go on shore, a light row-boat pulled alongside, in the centre of which stood a very black Hindoo with a very white turban around his head.” Clearly referring to an Indian.
One confederate U.S. officer, Raphael Semmes, wrote about his visit to Singapore in 1863 that mentioned “The finest dressed part of the population was decidedly the jet blacks, with their white flowing mantles and spotless turbans.” clearly referring to the Indians.
Indians in Singapore are now relatively light skinned because most of them are or descended from recent Indian immigrants. These texts suggest that they may have been darker skinned back then.
Curiously, I’ve never seen any reference to the Chinese as “white”. Maybe I just haven’t seen one yet.
I’ve not gotten to read colonial texts in South Asia that referred to the Indians as “black” yet.
I just thought this paragraph would be of interest and relevance to this topic.

Most West and East Africans, along with Tamils, share the same range of skin tones, shades of brown. It’s certain African groups in Savannahs scattered across the continent that are the darkest. How West and East Africans differ seems to be in their facial features, in which West Africans tend to have more pronounced negroid features. Indeed it’s West Africans and their descendants in which people of European descent and the Western world have had the most contact and are most familiar with.

I’m no expert, but I’m not sure how certain we can be that South Asians are a mix of Caucasoids and Australoids, but that wouldn’t surprise me, but I think some people don’t believe that. The darkest Indians I’ve seen looked like they could be European if they had light skin. Maybe that’s how australoid-caucasoid mulattoes look like? Yet South Asians are definitely Caucasoid, even if just partly.

That’s a good question about whether Europeans encountered Africans or Indians first. I would suspect Africans, they’re much more closer and accessible to Europeans than South Asians are for them, rather ironic I think because South Asians are more related to Europeans than Africans are, culturally and genetically. Europeans just have to follow the coasts and Nile southwards, and people seemed to have always found ways to cross the Sahara. Europeans rarely seem to have ventured far into the interior of Africa until like a century or two ago, because of uncertainty and the dangers and diseases, but people have always lived on coasts, and there’s plenty there already.
Sub-Saharan Africans have always been isolated from the rest of the world ever since at least the Sahara dried up. That’s largely why negroids have remained a distinct race.
Alexander the Great and his army made it all the way to North India, but the darkest Indians are from the far south of India, Alexander and his army only made it to the north, so I don’t think they would have seen the darkest Indians. Btw it’s possible that Alexander the Great may have never actually existed. Europeans and their descendants certainly seem to have been much more familiar with Africans and their descendants historically than they were with South Asians. Africa is much more nearer and accessible to Europeans than India is for them. European contact with Africans goes all the way back to ancient times. Obvious negro figures appear in Ancient Greek art, and negroes were occasionally depicted and mentioned throughout the Roman Empire and medieval Europe. I recall that some ancient skeletons unearthed in Britain were determined to be of African origin. You can read about that stuff online. I believe negroes in Ancient Greece and Rome would have mostly been from the Nile region, for ancient Greeks and Romans didn’t travel down the west African coast or cross the Sahara.
More importantly, Africans would become much more familiar and vital to Europeans during its age of discovery and colonialism over the past half millennium.
In contrast, Europeans had much less contact with South Asians than they did with Negroes. Most European contact with South Asians would have probably been through trade until they began colonising them, but that didn’t involve huge numbers of Europeans moving there and huge numbers of people of European and Indian descent living together, in contrast to how huge numbers of people of European, African and Australasian descent ended up living together, and the countries where that happened is evidently where and why the terms “white” and “black” people originate from, and during all that time the vast majority of Westerners remained unaware of how Asia and it’s people were like until modern times, I think like just a few generations ago. The darkest of Indians are found in the far south of the subcontinent and are rarely found overseas, and they seem to be minorities, maybe uncommon too. I’m not actually sure how natural or normal black skin is for Indians, and what it takes for them to be, I haven’t seen them like that in a long time, but it certainly exists, and if not common now, must have been more common in the past.

No I’ve always been aware that “black” was always a common term to refer to people of African and Australasian descent since the earliest days of their contact with Europeans. I believe the Ancient Greeks called Africans “Aithiops” meaning “burnt face” and described Indians as “Aithiops with straight hair”, and “blackamoor” was an early English term for Africans in the 16th century. However, by the mid 16th century, the term “negro” was becoming the most common term for people of African descent. “Black” was a common term, but that was a secondary term, the primary and most common term for them was “negro”, which was so for centuries, and only started fading out after the civil rights movement. As mentioned, it was never a pejorative term. English’s “Negro” and it’s equivalents in other European languages originated in but is not literally the same as Spanish’s and Portuguese’s “negro”, which for them just means the color black (which was subsequently used as a term and label for negroes, like in today’s English “black”), but “negro” in English and it’s equivalents in other European languages does not mean any color, it specifically means a race, that of people with negroid features, notably people of African and Australasian descent, regardless of color. You could say “white negro”, that would probably be either a very light negro or an albino.
people never used “negro” as adjectives, people never said “negro dog, bird, river, jacket, etc.” that would be like using the term “Caucasian” to describe those things, rather illogical.

It looks like supporters of using the term “black” want to make it look like race is only about skin color, even though it’s clearly not, it’s one of the last things that crosses my mind when thinking about race, and even then they’re clearly not thinking about South Asians.

I find it ironic that people have been much more mindful of the controversy of calling Native Americans “Indians”, but when it comes to naming dark skinned people, that wasn’t given much thought, and its like they think that there’s only one one group of black people in the world, negroes, where there’s actually two, negroes and South Asians.

South Asians aren’t known as “black”, but do you know whether they’re known as “colored”?

You say that Eurocentrism is ok? Please elaborate. I don’t think most people would agree. Understanding how it works is one thing, supporting it is another.

I don’t have any agenda. What do you mean by that? Do I look like I do? If I seem like it, I really don’t. Like I said I’m trying to explore something I’ve always found to be illogical and annoying. What do you mean when you say that you suspect that “this very Eurocentrism is my target”? I can’t say that I’d be supporting of it for one thing, unless you think I should, then I’m always willing to listen.

I hope I don’t come across as looking racist in any way. I have complete respect for all people deserving it, regardless of how they look or their background, for I think they are irrelevant to whether people deserve respect. In fact, I’d trade my light skin for dark skin any day, because I think it looks so much more cooler and beautiful, but alas, that’s not possible, because it’s all genetic.

I’m not sure whether you would call this an agenda, I wouldn’t, but nevertheless I have a wish that either:
1. The terms “negro” and “Caucasian” gets widely used again, in order to distinguish them from other light and dark skinned people who are not that.
2. If “negro” is considered too inappropriate (even though I can see no reason why it should be), then another term like it that specifically refers to those people gets introduced, in order to distinguish them from other dark skinned people who are not negro, like south Asians.
3. If the exaggerated terms “white” and “black” are to be widely used, then at least don’t limit them to people of European, African and Australasian descent, but include anyone that has light and dark skin.

Hope that makes sense.

Those seem like logical solutions to me, but none of those things are ever likely to happen soon sadly.

If you grew up around very nearly black Indians, would you then not wonder and question why only negroes are called “black people”? Seems inevitable to wonder for me, but others might disagree.

Kind regards.

[Homo Insapiens]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_Thind

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozawa_v._United_States

[Mortimer]

In Slovakia and other slavic speaking regions gypsies are known as blacks I don't mind how people lable each other as long it's in a respectful way

[Homo Insapiens]

https://amp.inkstonenews.com/opinion/michael-keevak-asians-were-called-yellow-they-were-called-white/article/3000772

https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/753623.html

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7t16j

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people

[Homo Insapiens]

Is there any equivalent to the term “negro” in Spanish and Portuguese which means the same thing that it does in English and other European languages, that is, not the color black or dark color, but the negroid & australoid races specifically?

I see that Spanish and Portuguese have terms for “Caucasian”, which is “Caucasico” in Spanish, and “Caucasiano” in Portuguese, so it’d be a shame if there isn’t an equivalent for “negro” for them.

I see that Spanish and Portuguese have equivalents for the term “negroid”, which is “negroide” for them. I’m wondering if that’s the same as “negro”.

[Homo Insapiens]

Does the term “Caucasian” mean the whole caucasoid race, or is it specific to Europeans and their look a-likes? (All I can think of are light Middle Easterners)

[Cristiano viejo]

I prefer Black and White. Plain English. I have nothing to do with the Caucasus area, and negro is just black in Latin.

No. Negro is black in Spanish. Black in Latin is niger, nigra and nigrum.

You are welcome in plain English.

[Homo Insapiens]

No. Negro is black in Spanish. Black in Latin is niger, nigra and nigrum.

You are welcome in plain English.

Thanks. Is the Latin word for black pronounced with a hard or soft letter ‘G’?

[Homo Insapiens]

I wonder why during the period of usage of the term “negro”, caucasians were still called “white”?

It would be logical to call both races by either color or name at the same time, which didn’t happen until the 1970’s, which ended up being color.

The earliest known use of the term “white people” was from 1613:

https://aeon.co/ideas/how-white-people-were-invented-by-a-playwright-in-1613

[Cristiano viejo]

Thanks. Is the Latin word for black pronounced with a hard or soft letter ‘G’?

Soft.

[Homo Insapiens]

How about this term for australoids: "Australo"

[Homo Insapiens]

If most people agree that people are rarely if ever literally the colors of their race names, and more importantly that there’s colour overlap between races, that they’re not exclusive to any one race, doesn’t that make more technical names like Caucasian & negro, rather than black & white, more logical? I’m not sure just what social problems existed in America to make colors more preferable to names, but it’s defied all logic.

[SouthDutch7991]

I would argue that White's are not Racially Pure in the West. In America, the majority of people are mixed Whites-- mixed peoples of Europe. German, Polish, French, Irish, English, etc. I would argue that Europeans are more racially pure. Germany or England or France is more racially pure 'genetically' than an American would be who is combined of these bloodlines.

Mixing people of the same race doesn't change it's composition, ethnic purity and racial purity are two different subjects. I would argue that ethnic dilution int he U.S. will eventually lead to racial dilution as well but that's another topic.

[SouthDutch7991]

If we want to be scientifically accurate, you can break down the human variation of the main two continents into three distinct and fairly defined genetic groups: West Eurasians inhabiting Europe, West Asia, and North Africa, East Eurasians inhabiting East Asia, Siberia, the Southeast Asian islands, and parts of Central Asia, and Sub Saharan Africans inhabiting Africa below the Sahara desert. Genetic studies have shown these groups to all be genetically distinct from each other and fairly genetically similar within themselves, although there is some overlap between "borderers" but this has actually been shown to be the result of ancient admixture and not some group that defies racial lines as typically portrayed by the liberal thinkers. I think there's nothing wrong with the term "Caucasoid" "Mongoloid" and "Negroid" compared to the reason for other anthropological terms which we apply to animals. Things like for example Albertosaurus named simply for a location, there's no problem in my mind with picking these geographical locations as the namesakes for these taxonomical separations. A lot of people will complain, so I will tend to use the terms "West Eurasian" "East Eurasian" and "Sub Saharan African" but it's obvious that the underlying racial theories were more or less correct with some exceptions that simply need to be updated, not thrown away entirely. I think the only groups defying these categories are Aboriginals and pacific islanders as even Americans are just far flung genetic East Eurasians.

Only Central Asia represents a truly 50/50 mix of any one race, Egyptians historically were less than 10% SSA and mainly levantine, people who looked like Assad rather than Mugabe.

[mashail]

u guys are so cute by calling them black or negro in ME especially in the Arab gulf they call them abeed LAMO!

[sean]

If most people agree that people are rarely if ever literally the colors of their race names, and more importantly that there’s colour overlap between races, that they’re not exclusive to any one race, doesn’t that make more technical names like Caucasian & negro, rather than black & white, more logical? I’m not sure just what social problems existed in America to make colors more preferable to names, but it’s defied all logic.

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?351057-Why-exactly-is-Negro-a-bad-word&p=7311461&viewfull=1#post7311461


If most people agree that people are rarely if ever literally the colors of their race names, and more importantly that there’s colour overlap between races, that they’re not exclusive to any one race, doesn’t that make more technical names like Caucasian & negro, rather than black & white, more logical? I’m not sure just what social problems existed in America to make colors more preferable to names, but it’s defied all logic.

STOP SPAMMING THIS BOARD WITH THIS SHIT.

Seek medical help.

[Homo Insapiens]

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?351057-Why-exactly-is-Negro-a-bad-word&p=7311461&viewfull=1#post7311461



STOP SPAMMING THIS BOARD WITH THIS SHIT.

Seek medical help.

I was just checking whether either thread died first before proceeding. No need to get emotional. Thanks for the advice.