Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 42

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

  1. #1
    Senior Member Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Homo Insapiens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Last Online
    02-17-2024 @ 02:58 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Mixed
    Ethnicity
    Mixed
    Country
    Singapore
    Gender
    Posts
    332
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 61
    Given: 7

    1 Not allowed!

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

    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?
    Last edited by Homo Insapiens; 07-16-2021 at 04:42 PM.

  2. #2
    Dinkum
    Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Creoda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celtic Australian
    Ancestry
    English & Irish Midlands. Gaels, Anglo-Saxons & Britons.
    Country
    Australia
    Region
    Victoria
    Y-DNA
    R1b-DF109
    mtDNA
    K1a10
    Politics
    Diversity is our greatest weakness
    Hero
    Those who made a better world
    Gender
    Posts
    11,827
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 13,853
    Given: 6,536

    3 Not allowed!

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Adrianv2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2021
    Last Online
    03-26-2024 @ 04:56 PM
    Location
    Fly Over Country
    Ethnicity
    Anglo Saxon
    Ancestry
    Irish German Dutch
    Country
    United States
    Region
    Ohio
    Gender
    Posts
    760
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 517
    Given: 1,528

    1 Not allowed!

    Default

    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.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Homo Insapiens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Last Online
    02-17-2024 @ 02:58 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Mixed
    Ethnicity
    Mixed
    Country
    Singapore
    Gender
    Posts
    332
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 61
    Given: 7

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Creoda View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Homo Insapiens; 07-16-2021 at 04:19 PM.

  5. #5
    Dinkum
    Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Creoda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celtic Australian
    Ancestry
    English & Irish Midlands. Gaels, Anglo-Saxons & Britons.
    Country
    Australia
    Region
    Victoria
    Y-DNA
    R1b-DF109
    mtDNA
    K1a10
    Politics
    Diversity is our greatest weakness
    Hero
    Those who made a better world
    Gender
    Posts
    11,827
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 13,853
    Given: 6,536

    2 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Millennium View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Junior Member Uncle Sam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Last Online
    09-16-2021 @ 06:35 PM
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Ethnicity
    Red-Blooded American
    Country
    United States
    Hero
    George Washington
    Religion
    Freedom of Religion
    Relationship Status
    Married
    Gender
    Posts
    42
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 19
    Given: 8

    1 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Creoda View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Last Online
    03-03-2024 @ 05:38 PM
    Ethnicity
    American
    Country
    United States
    Politics
    Paleoconservative
    Gender
    Posts
    4,889
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 3,860
    Given: 7,347

    1 Not allowed!

    Default

    "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.

  8. #8
    Resident Gadfly
    Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Canadian
    Country
    Canada
    Gender
    Posts
    3,674
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 7,096
    Given: 24,273

    1 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Millennium View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Millennium View Post
    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.

    Spoiler!


    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/sh...ed-%93white%94

    Nobody gives a fuck about your "South Asians are literal niggers" threads, it's too repetitive.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dorian View Post
    We GrecoRomansIberians once did the mistake of civilizing these cave-dwellers ,I suggest we make an alliance with muslims to accelerate their takeover
    Quote Originally Posted by renaissance12 View Post
    Scandinavia is not Europe
    Quote Originally Posted by Mortimer View Post
    It's OK to date girls 16+ they are not children remember the old song 'sweet sixteen'
    Quote Originally Posted by Tooting Carmen View Post
    Whites are often jealous of Blacks for their athleticism, creative talent and sexual prowess.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Last Online
    09-12-2023 @ 03:47 PM
    Location
    コミ共和国
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Finno-Permic
    Ethnicity
    Peasant
    Ancestry
    コミ
    Country
    Finland
    Taxonomy
    Karaboğa (euryprosopic, platyrrhine, dolichocephalic)
    Relationship Status
    Virgin
    Gender
    Posts
    2,170
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 4,862
    Given: 2,946

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sean View Post
    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://www.flickr.com/photos/punkmemory/8800365015
    https://kulturologia.ru/blogs/190916/31411/

    They look similar to these Circassians:


    http://collection.kunstkamera.ru/en/...508373&index=4
    Last edited by Komintasavalta; 07-16-2021 at 08:45 PM.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Homo Insapiens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Last Online
    02-17-2024 @ 02:58 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Mixed
    Ethnicity
    Mixed
    Country
    Singapore
    Gender
    Posts
    332
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 61
    Given: 7

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sean View Post
    Stop spamming your effortless threads, for once.

    https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...ed-%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.
    Last edited by Homo Insapiens; 07-17-2021 at 07:28 AM.

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 39
    Last Post: 12-06-2018, 11:02 AM
  2. What is your Black/Negro comfort level?
    By Æmeric in forum Race and Society
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 11-25-2017, 03:43 AM
  3. Which is Negro? Which is White.
    By Survivor in forum Race and Society
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-24-2017, 07:43 PM
  4. Black Racism, White Victims: Reverse Discrimination, Black-On-White Crime
    By European blood in forum The Bookshelf: Articles & Ebooks
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-10-2014, 03:59 PM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-23-2012, 12:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •