Are ARABS considered "WHITE"? - GoFuckYourself.com

webmaster x · 10-21-2004, 02:02 AM

If not... what exactly are they considered?

If you THINK this question is obvious, please check out

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...998373-7838306
How the Irish became White

AND

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...998373-7838306
How Jews became White Folks and what that says about Race in America.

Fake Nick · 10-21-2004, 02:06 AM

arabs are "taned"

Hank_Heartland · 10-21-2004, 02:06 AM

That is one dumbass question...Fuck the race card

webmaster x · 10-21-2004, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank_MrSkin
That is one dumbass question...Fuck the race card

If there's a 6 ton elephant in a room, there is still a 6 ton elephant in the room regardless of how hard you want to see a big ass table. So...

PiksalDesign · 10-21-2004, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by webmaster x
If there's a 6 ton elephant in a room, there is still a 6 ton elephant in the room regardless of how hard you want to see a big ass table. So...

But you can think of them both as objects... so

beemk · 10-21-2004, 02:10 AM

who cares?

KRL · 10-21-2004, 02:11 AM

They aren't considered Black, nor Hispanic.

webmaster x · 10-21-2004, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by PiksalDesign
But you can think of them both as objects... so

That has to be the most cogent post I've seen in a while.........

NOT.

If you are serious, then you must really dig this painting:

Hank_Heartland · 10-21-2004, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by webmaster x
If there's a 6 ton elephant in a room, there is still a 6 ton elephant in the room regardless of how hard you want to see a big ass table. So...

Either way you look at it...IT'S STILL A DUMBASS QUESTION

PiksalDesign · 10-21-2004, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank_MrSkin
Either way you look at it...IT'S STILL A DUMBASS QUESTION

agreed

abyss_al · 10-21-2004, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by webmaster x
That has to be the most cogent post I've seen in a while.........

NOT.

If you are serious, then you must really dig this painting:

awsome painting, theres some other nice ones too

webmaster x · 10-21-2004, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank_MrSkin
Either way you look at it...IT'S STILL A DUMBASS QUESTION

W.E.B. Du Bois said, on the launch of his groundbreaking 1903 treatise The Souls of Black Folk, ?for the problem of the Twentieth Century is the problem of the color-line??a prescient statement.

Wars of national liberation have been fought over this issue. The US has agonized over this issue. It is very REAL as much you like to deny it.

So... its not a DUMBASS Question.

Hank_Heartland · 10-21-2004, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by webmaster x
W.E.B. Du Bois said, on the launch of his groundbreaking 1903 treatise The Souls of Black Folk, ?for the problem of the Twentieth Century is the problem of the color-line??a prescient statement.

Wars of national liberation have been fought over this issue. The US has agonized over this issue. It is very REAL as much you like to deny it.

So... its not a DUMBASS Question.

BTW, read a good book it will ease your frustration

Good book for you

SpikeHeel · 10-21-2004, 02:26 AM

i have no idea..about the different colors.

Drake · 10-21-2004, 02:27 AM

I'm not sure but I think they do belong to the Caucasion grouping. Brown Indians (ex from India) are considered Caucasion even though they have darker skin.

webmaster x · 10-21-2004, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike33
I'm not sure but I think they do belong to the Caucasion grouping. Brown Indians (ex from India) are considered Caucasion even though they have darker skin.

This is a linguistic grouping -- Indo-European. The "Aryan" (ie., from modern-day Iran caucasians) in Northern to mid-India would qualify for this. The Dravidian south would not since their linguistic grouping is different.

Hank_Heartland · 10-21-2004, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by webmaster x
W.E.B. Du Bois said, on the launch of his groundbreaking 1903 treatise The Souls of Black Folk, ?for the problem of the Twentieth Century is the problem of the color-line??a prescient statement.

Wars of national liberation have been fought over this issue. The US has agonized over this issue. It is very REAL as much you like to deny it.

So... its not a DUMBASS Question.

Fuck...My link didn't work

But it is still a dumbass question.

Remember utmost if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem

Brother you are part of the problem for the question should not have to be asked

Drake · 10-21-2004, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by webmaster x
This is a linguistic grouping -- Indo-European. The "Aryan" (ie., from modern-day Iran caucasians) in Northern to mid-India would qualify for this. The Dravidian south would not since their linguistic grouping is different.

I thought it was based on linguistics aswell as physical features, namely bone structure?

webmaster x · 10-21-2004, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike33
I thought it was based on linguistics aswell as physical features, namely bone structure?

Actually, the conception of RACE has moved away from MORPHOLOGICAL markers but towards SOCIAL markers/attitudes/perceptions---please check out the synopses of the books I linked above. Definitely page turners... specially Ignatieff's book.

Hank_Heartland · 10-21-2004, 02:39 AM

So what is your point???

webmaster x · 10-21-2004, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank_MrSkin
So what is your point???

Don't spoil the surprise. Read the links and you'll see the POINT. It will PIMPSLAP you like a punk on the DL.

nmcog · 10-21-2004, 02:46 AM

not white but sand hahahahahahas

Drake · 10-21-2004, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by webmaster x
Actually, the conception of RACE has moved away from MORPHOLOGICAL markers but towards SOCIAL markers/attitudes/perceptions---please check out the synopses of the books I linked above. Definitely page turners... specially Ignatieff's book.

I'll check them. The first book seems to have struck a chord, good and bad with readers. Some of the harsher critics (reviews from online readers):

"I picked up this book hoping to have a better understanding of the Irish past, and all I got was a racist slant on an otherwise abused people. It is sad that even in the modern day the Irish must still deal with racist garbage like this. Mr. Ignatiev should try reading more on the Irish before writing a book of half-truths and presumptions."

"Taking Ignatiev seriously will only anger you. Here is another Harvard professor trying to cause controversy and media for himself. Mr. Ignatiev attacks the Irish and blames them for the ills of the black man and pretty much calls them cowards for turning what he calls "White", His use of arcane 18th century material fails to grasp the Irish in there true immigrant form; for that we need to study the 1840's and the Irish genocide. Save your money and do not line the pockets of an Irish Hater."

webmaster x · 10-21-2004, 02:51 AM

The reason people misunderstand Ignatieff's portrayal of the Irish is that it is not politically correct but still an accurate reflection (as summarized in the Irish union statements, writings, and memoirs of the time) of the Irish rage at being the working class of 1800's America. Many would hold a strike if a factory owner hired an African American (freeman). This highlights the psychic dischord between the reality of being at the bottom of the social barrel and the comfort a RACIAL HIERARCHY offered this ethnic working class.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike33
I'll check them. The first book seems to have struck a chord, good and bad with readers. Some of the harsher critics (reviews from online readers):

"I picked up this book hoping to have a better understanding of the Irish past, and all I got was a racist slant on an otherwise abused people. It is sad that even in the modern day the Irish must still deal with racist garbage like this. Mr. Ignatiev should try reading more on the Irish before writing a book of half-truths and presumptions."

"Taking Ignatiev seriously will only anger you. Here is another Harvard professor trying to cause controversy and media for himself. Mr. Ignatiev attacks the Irish and blames them for the ills of the black man and pretty much calls them cowards for turning what he calls "White", His use of arcane 18th century material fails to grasp the Irish in there true immigrant form; for that we need to study the 1840's and the Irish genocide. Save your money and do not line the pockets of an Irish Hater."

MBS Auto · 10-21-2004, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nmcog
not white but sand hahahahahahas

What you say and type is being watched.... Be careful

Arabs, I believe are Arians--> that would make them White

Drake · 10-21-2004, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by webmaster x
The reason people misunderstand Ignatieff's portrayal of the Irish is that it is not politically correct but still an accurate reflection (as summarized in the Irish union statements, writings, and memoirs of the time) of the Irish rage at being the working class of 1800's America. Many would hold a strike if a factory owner hired an African American (freeman). This highlights the psychic dischord between the reality of being at the bottom of the social barrel and the comfort a RACIAL HIERARCHY offered this ethnic working class.

I see what you're saying. You could probably write a similar book on the interaction and hierarchy of race and gender during the 1800's too. It's actually something I thought about during a sociology class I took in university a few years ago.

For instance, white men made more and could opnely discriminate against white women (hierarchy based on gender) yet at the same time a white woman could discriminate against a man or woman of another color (hierarchy based on race).

webmaster x · 10-21-2004, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike33
I see what you're saying. You could probably write a similar book on the interaction and hierarchy or race and gender during the 1800's too.

Where white men made more and could opnely discriminate against white women (hierarchy based on gender) yet at the same time a white woman could discriminate against a man or woman of another color (hierarchy based on race).

Exactly! Now, how the Irish (and Jews and Italians, and basically all other non-Wasp (white anglo saxon protestant) but European subgroups) became WHITE is when WHITE stopped being more or less about physical appearance but focused more on Social privilege.

To illustrate the point: A Catholic Sicilian Italian would get laughed at by "polite society" (as the historic WASPs would call it) if he claimed he was WHITE back in the 1800s all the way to as recent as 1940. AFTER 1940 (and the US psychic revulsion at the EXTREMES racialist Nazis took), an Italian saying he's white would still be laughed at but more at the fact that he's claiming something that is 'obvious'.

Manowar · 10-21-2004, 03:04 AM

hova · 10-21-2004, 03:08 AM

They are not white, I call them black........but then again WHO CARES??!!??!!

Drake · 10-21-2004, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by webmaster x
Exactly! Now, how the Irish (and Jews and Italians, and basically all other non-Wasp (white anglo saxon protestant) but European subgroups) became WHITE is when WHITE stopped being more or less about physical appearance but focused more on Social privilege.

To illustrate the point: A Catholic Sicilian Italian would get laughed at by "polite society" (as the historic WASPs would call it) if he claimed he was WHITE back in the 1800s all the way to as recent as 1940. AFTER 1940 (and the US psychic revulsion at the EXTREMES racialist Nazis took), an Italian saying he's white would still be laughed at but more at the fact that he's claiming something that is 'obvious'.

I see what you're saying and what the author is saying but I think he is applying too academic an approach. It hasn't quite worked like that. Differentiation into categories of white and non-white are still entrenched solely on skin color.

While an Irish man with red hair may look different than one with blonde or brown hair (the wasp), and may have at one point been discriminated based on this quality, the discrimination resulted more I think with customs and language barriers. For instance even Russians and Germans were once discriminated against when they were newcomers to North America. The social priviledge softened or even eradicated this, but it wouldn't work that way for a black man with black skin. Regardless of his social standing his blackness is immediately salient and with that (especially in this culture) often comes with certain stereotypes.

In other words poor or wealthy Irish, Wasp, and Italians can probably join an all white organization, but a black man cannot. That is a distinction that goes beyond social priviledge right back to the raw seperation based on color.

Sometimes academics write a lot of jibberish and get lost in it and overlook the obvious and the theories rather than reailties that they should be basing their work around.

webmaster x · 10-21-2004, 03:23 AM

So you are saying that the construction of "Race" had less to do with acculturation and more to do with PHYSICAL markers?

How would this explain the seeming 'acceptance' of Northern Asians but revulsion at so-called (I don't share this view) 'white trash'?

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike33
I see what you're saying and what the author is saying but I think he is applying too academic an approach. It hasn't quite worked like that. Differentiation into categories of white and non-white are still entrenched solely on skin color.

While an Irish man with red hair may look different than one with blonde or brown hair (the wasp), and may have at one point been discriminated based on this quality, the discrimination resulted more I think with customs and language barriers. For instance even Russians and Germans were once discriminated against when they were newcomers to North America. The social priviledge softened or even eradicated this, but it wouldn't work that way for a black man with black skin. Regardless of his social standing his blackness is immediately salient and with that (especially in this culture) often comes with certain stereotypes.

In other words poor or wealthy Irish, Wasp, and Italians can probably join an all white organization, but a black man cannot. That is a distinction that goes beyond social priviledge right back to the raw seperation based on color.

Sometimes academics write a lot of jibberish and get lost in it and overlook the obvious and the theories rather than reailties that they should be basing their work around.

Drake · 10-21-2004, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by webmaster x
So you are saying that the construction of "Race" had less to do with acculturation and more to do with PHYSICAL markers?

How would this explain the seeming 'acceptance' of Northern Asians but revulsion at so-called (I don't share this view) 'white trash'?

Both culture and physical markers. In a given culture a particular "Race" will have it's own appending charactersitics (if we want to call them stereotypes whether they're true, or false, or self-fulfilling prophecy). In our culture one would include the idea that Asians (chinese/japanese) are generally weak but smart and have a strong work ethic which is something that will be accepted and even esteemed in a culture that prides itself on rugged individualism and capitalism. Whether they're accepted is another issue. If you go to any university campus you'll find that there is a general fear because the Asian population is so large. "Asian Invasion" is a term I heard while on campus. It's like disliking somebody but being envious of them at the same time. It's not contradictory to do so. They're a relatively quiet population not caught up in the forefront of things like civil rights activism so we don't see acceptance or non-acceptance of them as clearly. But clearly, terms like "chink" and "jap" that are well known even today indicates that their was a conscious effort to distiguish them from other groups.

The revulsion of 'white trash' has less claws. It usually just denotes somebody who is considered to be from a small community that has not had enough exposure to the outside world and is thus ignorant of things that are obvious to you and me. The reference is for the most part jovial and doesn't speak to the individuals inherent capabilities but to their upbringing (or lack thereof) and their location ("the backwoods with inbred parents" type thing).

BRISK · 10-21-2004, 03:54 AM

gxer · 10-21-2004, 04:04 AM

Yes, there is a white arabs indeed, but only from Syria and Lebanon.

mightyjoe · 10-21-2004, 04:22 AM

webmaster x = $5 submissions = gene

?

kmanrox · 10-21-2004, 04:43 AM

i'd guess a geneoligist / DNA expert would be able to tell the difference?

nmcog · 10-21-2004, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gxer
Yes, there is a white arabs indeed, but only from Syria and Lebanon.

Some Iraqies are white too. There is a large Iraqi immigrant community in a big town close to me.

Lebanese women are HOT!

http://www.arabiccelebrities.com/Gal...lebanon-01.htm

webmaster x · 10-21-2004, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mightyjoe
webmaster x = $5 submissions = gene

?

I am employed by them, if that brightens things up for ya.

webmaster x · 10-21-2004, 05:32 AM

Mike,

Great posts, man! Good points. I also like they way you constructed social perceptions since it allows for cultural relativism. For instance, the notion of RACE is different in Brazil (ie., a person can be born a poor 'black' but die a rich 'mestizo' or 'white' --same in many latin cultures) as in HAITI where a drop of 'white' blood = white.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike33
Both culture and physical markers. In a given culture a particular "Race" will have it's own appending charactersitics (if we want to call them stereotypes whether they're true, or false, or self-fulfilling prophecy). In our culture one would include the idea that Asians (chinese/japanese) are generally weak but smart and have a strong work ethic which is something that will be accepted and even esteemed in a culture that prides itself on rugged individualism and capitalism. Whether they're accepted is another issue. If you go to any university campus you'll find that there is a general fear because the Asian population is so large. "Asian Invasion" is a term I heard while on campus. It's like disliking somebody but being envious of them at the same time. It's not contradictory to do so. They're a relatively quiet population not caught up in the forefront of things like civil rights activism so we don't see acceptance or non-acceptance of them as clearly. But clearly, terms like "chink" and "jap" that are well known even today indicates that their was a conscious effort to distiguish them from other groups.

The revulsion of 'white trash' has less claws. It usually just denotes somebody who is considered to be from a small community that has not had enough exposure to the outside world and is thus ignorant of things that are obvious to you and me. The reference is for the most part jovial and doesn't speak to the individuals inherent capabilities but to their upbringing (or lack thereof) and their location ("the backwoods with inbred parents" type thing).

webmaster x · 10-21-2004, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mightyjoe
webmaster x = $5 submissions = gene

?

And no, I am not Gene. Although he's a great consciencious boss and a good guy. I'm just one of his writers. I handle board posts as well as some current events and stock newsletter research and writing work webmasterlabor.com provides.

ezrydn · 10-21-2004, 06:39 AM

First, they have to show me that their even "human" before I start worrying about "color." So far, that first requirement seems to be escaping them, by their actions.

Spunky · 10-21-2004, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by beemk
who cares?

DevilsBackbone · 10-21-2004, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nmcog

Lebanese women are HOT!

http://www.arabiccelebrities.com/Gal...lebanon-01.htm

macker · 10-21-2004, 08:16 AM

This thread reminds me of being back at uni where intellectuals would debate shit for debates sake, even when nobody other than them actually cares what they're talking about.

Now where is my pillow.

Goatse · 10-21-2004, 09:35 AM

If Semites are considered European, I guess Indians could be considered Japanese...

Repetitive Monkey · 10-21-2004, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ezrydn
First, they have to show me that their even "human" before I start worrying about "color." So far, that first requirement seems to be escaping them, by their actions.

Let me guess, you are Jewish?

Repetitive Monkey · 10-21-2004, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Goatse
If Semites are considered European, I guess Indians could be considered Japanese...

They argue that since our perception of the white race has changed and expanded to include Italians and the Irish, pretty much everyone is white and will be considered so at some point in the future.

Which is moronic.

10-21-2004, 02:02 AM	#1
webmaster x Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 4,400	Are ARABS considered "WHITE"? If not... what exactly are they considered? If you THINK this question is obvious, please check out http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...998373-7838306 How the Irish became White AND http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...998373-7838306 How Jews became White Folks and what that says about Race in America. __________________ Click 9500 FHG Text Descriptions--Only $89!

10-21-2004, 02:06 AM	#3
Hank_Heartland Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: chicago, il Posts: 3,987	That is one dumbass question...Fuck the race card __________________ Icq = 459565429 AIM = butlerhankb http://stripperpins.com Twitter = @stripperpins Facebook = Stripperpins.com [email protected]

10-21-2004, 02:10 AM	#6
beemk CLICK HERE Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 20,829	who cares? __________________ I host with Vacares

10-21-2004, 02:11 AM	#7
KRL Entrepreneur Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA Posts: 31,429	They aren't considered Black, nor Hispanic. __________________ If you would like to develop your domains, you can lease inexpensive foreign labor from the leaders in the field at iWebmasters.com TO LOWER YOUR COSTS AND INCREASE YOUR PRODUCTION! * * * * * * * * * * * * Domains Adult News KRL's Newsletter Biz Tips Just Listed Domains

10-21-2004, 02:26 AM	#14
SpikeHeel Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Venus Posts: 1,531	i have no idea..about the different colors. __________________ 100% exclusive fetish content - 60% recurring CCBill program No pop-ups – No traffic leaks – No cross sells – Hosted galleries – Promo content - Free Hosting - ICQ: 228585136

10-21-2004, 02:06 AM	#2
Fake Nick So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: go troll goo! Posts: 7,708	arabs are "taned"

10-21-2004, 02:27 AM	#15
Drake Hello world! Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 12,508	I'm not sure but I think they do belong to the Caucasion grouping. Brown Indians (ex from India) are considered Caucasion even though they have darker skin.

10-21-2004, 02:39 AM	#20
Hank_Heartland Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: chicago, il Posts: 3,987	So what is your point??? __________________ Icq = 459565429 AIM = butlerhankb http://stripperpins.com Twitter = @stripperpins Facebook = Stripperpins.com [email protected]

10-21-2004, 02:46 AM	#22
nmcog Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 825	not white but sand hahahahahahas

10-21-2004, 03:04 AM	#28
Manowar jellyfish Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 71,528

10-21-2004, 03:08 AM	#29
hova Traffillionaire Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: ICQ:209371571 Posts: 22,430	They are not white, I call them black........but then again WHO CARES??!!??!! __________________ http://traffillions.com/ Sign up and get lifetime revshare on your traffic

10-21-2004, 03:54 AM	#33
BRISK Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 12,240	__________________ I post on GFY so that when people ask me what I do, I can tell them that I work with the mentally retarded.

10-21-2004, 04:04 AM	#34
gxer Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Location Posts: 846	Yes, there is a white arabs indeed, but only from Syria and Lebanon.

10-21-2004, 04:22 AM	#35
mightyjoe Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 1,395	webmaster x = $5 submissions = gene ?

10-21-2004, 04:43 AM	#36
kmanrox aka K-Man Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: The Gutter Posts: 29,292	i'd guess a geneoligist / DNA expert would be able to tell the difference? __________________ Crypto HODLr Crypto mining Angel investor

10-21-2004, 06:39 AM	#41
ezrydn Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Guadalajara, MX Posts: 695	First, they have to show me that their even "human" before I start worrying about "color." So far, that first requirement seems to be escaping them, by their actions.

10-21-2004, 08:16 AM	#44
macker Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: www.FetishAssets.com Posts: 2,161	This thread reminds me of being back at uni where intellectuals would debate shit for debates sake, even when nobody other than them actually cares what they're talking about. Now where is my pillow. __________________ ForcedMen \| AsianViolation \| WorkMyCock \| TickleAsian \| MasturbationInstructors \| AssCleaners \| TickleTorment \| Fetish4Download (VOD) \| PantyhosePlaza \| FemaleDomination mick[at]fetishassets.com \| ICQ: 395-117

10-21-2004, 09:35 AM	#45
Goatse Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,086	If Semites are considered European, I guess Indians could be considered Japanese...