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

[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.

Spoiler!

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.



They look similar to these Circassians:

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.

Spoiler!

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.

Spoiler!

[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?