Are ARABS considered "WHITE"?
 

If not... what exactly are they considered?:helpme

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.

arabs are "taned" :glugglug

That is one dumbass question...Fuck the race card:321GFY

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... :321GFY

But you can think of them both as objects... so :321GFY

who cares?

They aren't considered Black, nor Hispanic.

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:


http://www.astrosurf.com/lombry/Docu...itte-pipe2.jpg

Either way you look at it...IT'S STILL A DUMBASS QUESTION:321GFY

agreed

:thumbsup
awsome painting, theres some other nice ones too

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.



:glugglug

BTW, read a good book it will ease your frustration

Good book for you

:1orglaugh :Graucho

i have no idea..about the different colors.

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.

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:helpme

Brother you are part of the problem for the question should not have to be asked:321GFY

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.

So what is your point???:helpme

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

not white but sand hahahahahahas

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."

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.

:321GFY


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


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

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).

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'.

:helpme

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

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.

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).

:)

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

webmaster x = $5 submissions = gene

?

:helpme

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

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

http://www.arabiccelebrities.com/ima...s-2004-037.jpg

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

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.

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.

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.

:Graucho :Graucho :thumbsup

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.

:sleep

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

Let me guess, you are Jewish?

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. :1orglaugh