Reply to Thread New Thread |
06-30-2011, 01:16 AM | #1 |
|
|
|
06-30-2011, 03:07 AM | #2 |
|
|
|
06-30-2011, 03:20 AM | #4 |
|
|
|
06-30-2011, 03:23 AM | #5 |
|
|
|
06-30-2011, 03:56 AM | #9 |
|
|
|
06-30-2011, 04:09 AM | #11 |
|
|
|
06-30-2011, 04:20 AM | #13 |
|
|
|
06-30-2011, 04:20 AM | #14 |
|
I find the one drop rule doesn't make sense. I was watching "Black In America" and they had this one guy on. He had a black mother and a white father, he called himself "black", but he didn't look black at all. He looked white. Lets say in a theoretical situation, I witnessed him commit a crime... when the police asked me for my statement, I'd describe him as a white guy.
---------- Post added 2011-06-29 at 17:20 ---------- She identifies as Black. Thing is, I don't view "black" and "white" as ethnicties. They're looks. I identify by my ethnicity, not as "white". There are like what? 1 billion white people? You'd have to be more specific. |
|
06-30-2011, 04:20 AM | #15 |
|
This depends, are you using White in a racial or ethnic context. If in a racial context, then it would be based on whether or not there are observable heritable traits from any racial grouping that isn't considered "White" in the individual or any of their recent ancestors/close family(full siblings.) If you mean to use "White" as an ethnic description or to describe a single or group of ethnicities, then anything other than an overwhelming history of moderately recent ancestors belonging to that group or group of ethnicites doesn't qualify. Both contexts are in popular use, and sometimes there isn't a distinction made between whether somebody is referring to an ethnic description or a racial one. "White" is just too vague for there not to be complexities.
|
|
06-30-2011, 04:23 AM | #16 |
|
Having 25 percent admixture makes you mixed. I voted 7/8, but I'm rather meaning ancient admixture. I don't see why anyone should identify as "white" when having a granparent who is half something not Caucasoid? Of course, that person would likely pass as white for the public that did not know his or her ancestry.
If going by tradition, only "Germanics" are white. There was a time when the Italians, the Finns and the Irish suffered ethnic discrimination in Western European countries, Nowadays, they are considered more or less "honorary Western Europeans". |
|
06-30-2011, 04:25 AM | #17 |
|
Well... It's hard to say. White is more of a social thing really.
5/8ths for white if your other admixture is from another caucasoid ethnic group(say you are 5/8s euro and 3/8s turk/jew/persian/berber/etc) 7/8s if you are mixed with SSA. Octoroons are basically white. and I'd say 7/8s if mixed with Amerind. Castizo I guess still counts as not white. Then again, it really is a social thing. I will use myself as an example again because I think I fit the border of whitevsnonwhite and I'm the only person I can speak for authoritatively. Being 1/4 euro, 1/8 amerind 1/8 maghreb jew and 1/2 ashkenazi jew.... White Americans see me as white. People born in Europe generally do not. As well, mestizos and MENAs tend to see me as non-white. But SSAs will usually see me as white, unless they are also hispanic. I tend to see myself as "off-white" like the paint on walls. My point is, white is more a social thing than a quantitative measurable race. That being said- I still wonder if you all consider me as white? |
|
06-30-2011, 04:28 AM | #18 |
|
If going by tradition, only "Germanics" are white. There was a time when the Italians, the Finns and the Irish suffered ethnic discrimination in Western European countries, Nowadays, they are considered more or less "honorary Western Europeans". |
|
06-30-2011, 04:30 AM | #20 |
|
I'd like to say that "White" makes much more sense in the New World than it does in Europe.White was used to distinguish individuals based on appearance or I suppose a loosely defined race (and assumed ancestry) from those of other phenotypes(races) and assumed ancestries. It was used to distinguish Europeans from Africans and Native Americans based on appearance alone. The reason why I mention assumed ancestry, is because eventually when admixture has been diluted enough the mixed individual will be indistinguishable from variation among 'pure' individuals. They are for all intents and purposes, white, and are assumed to have fully European ancestry(with few sound-proof ways of determining this.) In the old world it held much less strength to it, obviously because of the limited interactions with significantly different racial groups(Native Americans, Africans.)
|
|
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|