- NEW!
by President Norris 2016 on October 16th, 2009
I look at it this way, were all humans, when were dead the earthworms are not going to care.
by Talimze on October 17th, 2009
The true Caucasians, namely the people from Georgia, are supposed to be the archetype for the "white race." It is an outdated term though, and is no longer used in a technical sense as far as I know.
by Leah on October 16th, 2009
I do think since peopel in Asia or of Asian decent should be reffered to as Asian. Peopel from Africa or of African decent are called African. So people who are from Europe (Inluding Turks) or of European decent should be called European and people from India should be considered Asian becase they are in Asia, and people from the Middle East should be refferd to as Middle Eastren.
But nothing is wrong with reffering to everyone with just 'people' (with out classifications)
by Whitehair on October 16th, 2009
You are right, Arisztid, it is not only outdated, it is more and more impossible to determine. When I hear people on forums tell about their ancestors I would call this an universal mix. Any classification should be dropped. It should not matter in the job market nor any other branch of living. By filling out forms people should put 2 question marks in that appropiate box - as well as in other boxes, like religion or even gender.
by Anonymous on October 17th, 2009
The term, in it's narrowest sense, refers to people from the Caucasus Mountain region of Eastern Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, etc. The term as referring to "whites" is obsolete. People pretty much self-classify these days. +5
by raindancer on October 16th, 2009
Personally, I've always preferred the term "white". It's easier to say and to spell.
by RC loves ice cream on October 16th, 2009
I've been to both India and Africa, and I can tell you that the term Caucasian still makes a lot of sense. The facial characteristics of Indian and European people are pretty much identical. Only the skin colour differs. You probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference in ethnicity between say, a Syrian and an Italian at all, except by their language and clothing. By comparison, oriental ("mongoloid") and African ("negroid") facial characteristics are recognisably different. There are, of course, differences in skin colour within these groups too.
by ANONYMOUS on October 16th, 2009
I didn't realize this. I did think it meant white. In that case maybe we should come up with a new term. White works for me. I'm pretty white.
by Sokoot on January 16th, 2010
I think the race of someone is based on the color they have since birth and other characteristics they share with other memebrs of the race. People in Middle East are born white but in certain areas their skin changes to the darker colors due to the weather conditions and they also share similar genetics with other caucasians.
by Hardcore Conservative on October 30th, 2009
African-American is used almost exclusively to denote those of negro ancestry. Yet, there are many white people, born in Africa who are not considered African Americans.
I was born here in the United States. Am I not a native American, even if I don't have any American Indian geneology?
by iwnit on October 20th, 2009
I think that the whole idea of race is outdated. It should actually be since the Holocaust.
I don't like the idea of making new, more "accurate" classifications of races and I like even less the idea of "the disintegration of the U.S. into independent, one-racial states in order to preserve racial diversity."
Source and further information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_McCulloch
by matt89 on October 19th, 2009
I had never thought about that. But now that you point it out it makes sense and I agree with you.
by qwerty on October 17th, 2009
I hope this isn't a dupe, the site crashed when I was posting
the terms Gay and lesbian task force and the NAACP are both outdated as well
WHite works for me provided someone isn't 'looking down their noes' when using it
I think caucasian more aptly describes 'other' more than whites
by Emmi331 on October 17th, 2009
I was taught in college Anthropology class that there are three races and that's it: Caucasian, Negro, and Mongoloid (we usually say Asian). Of course a lot of mix-and-match goes on and there are color variations within each race, but those are the Big Three, unless the scholarship on this has changed.
by Millenium - The Mysterious M. . . GONE! on October 17th, 2009
My answer would require a "treatise"! I have neither the time or inclination to do so! And with the influx of more and more ethnic groups, it's . . . .well. . . .never mind!
by RosieGHM Jetpacker on October 17th, 2009
Since we all started from the same place...whether you are religious and go that route or not religious and go the route of evolution...there is only one race and that is the human race. All the rest is blather as far as I'm concerned Ari! Happy Saturday to you! :) ((hugs))
by Jadey - Vive la difference on October 17th, 2009
I am not sure it is ouitdated to much as entirely misused in America. In an attempt (perhaps?) to be politically correct, people using this term are often attempting to group people into a racial category, one to which they do not belong. In the UK Caucasian is not synonymous with white.
by Marky Mark on October 17th, 2009
Yes they are outdated and increasingly so as the global village stirs the melting pot of humanity. (Too many metaphors? lol!) The "voyages of discovery" and colonisation which was started by Europeans in the 15th century signalled the beginning of the end of the "true/pure" races of the world. Ever since then races have been mixing. It has been predicted that in a few hundred years time everyone on earth will be a shade of beige.
Many "white" people are unaware that they a have ancestors from different races. Families tended to hide their non-white roots to obtain the privileges of being seen as white. Many only find out when they commission a genealogical study of their family tree.
Many "black" people also have some white and asian ancestors.
by Sid on October 17th, 2009
I agree, which is why I always say that I'm white if asked, not Caucasian. I know white is not strictly correct either but I feel it is more accurate than Caucasian to describe myself.
by The Chief on October 16th, 2009
You are absolutely correct, Arisztid.
"Caucasian" is NOT a skin color classification. It's a classification of people from the region of the Caucasus mountains and historically has included the entire population of people from Europe, North Africa, Horn of Africa, West/Central/South Asia.
In otherwords, it's anything BUT a classification by color...or even race for that matter.
It's roots as a term relating to "white race" probably goes back to an American anthropoligist, Carleton Stevens Coon, who used the terms "Caucasoid" and "White" interchangeably in his 1939 book "The Races of Europe, The White Race and the New World". The European race was a sub-race of the Caucasoid race.
Of interest, this view of race was becoming out of date among anthropologists at that time, with the exception of...can you guess? That's right, Nazi anthropologists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carleton_S._Coon
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Caucasoid/id/1948940
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_and_race
Classification of racial types by geographical areas makes sense, if you subscribe to an origin and evolution of mankind that talks about the birth and spread of humanity. This is because evolutionary divergence occurs across any species that is geographically spread out and separated by geography and distance and time.
Gross and clear examples of this can be seen with the differences between African peoples, Asian peoples, South American peoples, Australian Aborignes, and so forth. However, when speaking of this, we are talking about OLD peoples...not the people who have migrated to these regions in the last few centuries, where modern transportation has allowed mankind to conduct mass migrations of humans virtually everywhere on the planet. We speak of such peoples as "natives" of those regions because they have been there for thousands of years.
However, modern science is delving more into the actual genetics of the different peoples on our planet...and again, tying these into geographical regions, as well as cultural types.
From an anthropological standpoint, I can see why we study these things. They're clues to our origins and how weve evolved as a species.
But as time goes on, I imagine they will become more meaningless, especially if we are able to maintain our present global transportation capabilities. More important will be the CULTURAL aspects...how and why people live the way they do.
The Mexican culture, racially speaking, is largely a mixture of Spanish blood with Central American indian blood, to varying degrees. And let's not even go into the American and Canadian populations, with their diversity. Angles, Saxons and Jutes; Franks; Romans...the list goes on and on and on.
I think "white" should be a skin tone characteristic, used to describe some cultures...not as a "racial charactistic" in itself.
by Jacques on October 16th, 2009
The definition is outdated and the ethnic classifications far too broad to mean anything.
by More2Be on October 16th, 2009
Caucasians are named for the Caucasus mountains of the countries between Turkey and Russia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race .
The term has evolved to be synonomous with european appearance in some uses, and is believed too broadly inclusive of peoples from Asia, Africa, and Europe as a medical definition, given there are differences from group to group and even individual to individual.
by Tania Lue on October 16th, 2009
I think it't is absolutely outdated. A friend of mine is from Turkey and thus the region known as Caucasus (I think). He is officially "Caucasian" though he is dark skinned. It's interesting how the world has made a preference for people who are white.
White people include a great range of nationalities and therefore a classification is hard to achieve.
+3 for the question!
by Moley the contrary female dragon on October 16th, 2009
It has not been used in official census in US since 2000.
many believe it to mean white but you are correct in your definition as it included all those from the region of the caucas.
It is necessary to have some way to describe people, to identify them by recogniseable features.
It also helps in the fight against discrimination as if you dont have a way to count how many of a particular ethnicity are disadvantaged, ignored, not employed etc, how do you prove it is happening.
To use the term caucasian is misleading, not helpful.
by Elfie on October 16th, 2009
It is. The concept of race is purely cultural, and the terms we use in North America are not universal racial terms.
by r i p facebook on October 16th, 2009
Archaically outdated.
by Dmitri on October 16th, 2009
I say you are right, Ariztid. While I didn't know that it does include Arabs, even Persians, it is an outdated term. I prefer Anglo Americans or even Euro Americans, with the emphasis being on the ancestry, regardless of whether they have been to England or any part of Europe.
by AnonJerry on October 16th, 2009
i don't care much for racial classification i show who i am through my thoughts actions and such
by PERSIANDUDE on January 30th, 2011
Not really because people from - Europe - Middle East - Northern India - all have a very very similar skull shape and bone structure. - Caucasian does not mean you are white. Not all Caucasians are white people - Middle Easterners and Northern Indians are Caucasian but they are not white. The only Caucasians that are white would be European Caucasians. - People from the Middle East and North India are Caucasians also but they are not white. I am Iranian and yes Iranians are Caucasian but they are not white - Caucasianoid does not mean you are white . . } --- I hoped that helped.
In anthropology,what is stratigraphy?
by Educanus on November 15th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
In anthropology,what is a site?
by Educanus on November 15th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Are physical properties the only way humans name and identify those things they are most attracted to/by? Or is there more to human desire?
by GibsonGuy on December 27th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Is it the fault of natural evolutionary forces that we are so selfish, superstition-ridden, power-hungry, over-indulgent
by WhiteyGruelle on January 10th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
What physical characteristics make a man attractive to gay men.
by JimmyG on August 18th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
You're reading "Caucasian" includes folks from India, Iran, Turkey, and more very dark skinned peoples. However, "Caucasian" is usually used interchangeably with "white." I think that this sort of classification is outdated. What is your opinion of this?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Very true.
.
I am just a little OCD (ok more than a little) so lazy and/or inaccurate taxonomy gets to me.
by Arisztid on October 16th, 2009