Talk:Caucasian

From Academic Kids

(( Moved text to Talk:Caucasian race ))

"Caucasian" has several distinct meanings in different contexts, and none seems universaly more important than others. In particular, the linguistic sense and the strict geographic sense(s) seem to be the most important ones among *I vote to make "Caucasian race" the main article here with a link at the top to the disambiguation. There are really only two things we need to disambiguate here, "Caucasian race" and "Caucasian languages". "Caucasian race" is really what people are looking for when they search for "Caucasian." ☞spencer195 05:24, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I dispute that assertion. To many people, Caucasian languages and Caucasian peoples are much more important subjects than Caucasian race. The latter was considered a scientific concept in the pre-DNA era, but became meaningless in the light of modern genetics. Now we know that even people of supposedly "pure races" are more genetically mixed than even the most radical skeptics would have guessed; and that each gene (e.g. for eye color) diffuses and get selected quite independently of other genes. So it seems odd to put an obsolete concept, whose interest is only historical, as the main article of an encyclopedia; and leave those concepts that do have scientific (and political) relevance hidden behind a disambig.

Moreover, even people who come here looking for "Caucasian race" will probably benefit from knowing that there are at least three distinct senses of "Caucasian", not to mention the linguistic and geographical ones. Note that "Caucasian type" in government forms is very different from "Caucasian race" in racial politics, from the "Caucasian race" of various Caucasus nationalist movements, and from the "Caucasian race" of 19th century anthopologists.
Jorge Stolfi 18:49, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Regarding "common usage, especially in North America"

I would like to take issue with the statement that "in common usage and political contexts, especially North America, Caucasian usually means a white person of northern, eastern and western European descent, excluding people with southern European descent (which are often called "Latins"), or with Asian, African, or Mediterranean origin." This statement is simply incorrect and does not reflect common usage in the United States.

I am Italian-born, therefore a southern European, who has lived in the United States for over thirty years, and I know this country very well. I assure you that southern Europeans are not referred to as "Latins" in this country, for the simple reason that this term is used to refer specifically to Latin-Americans (or Hispanics). It may be that in Northern Europe the term "Latin" is frequently applied to Italians and other southern Europeans, but not in the United States.

Personally, I have no axe to grind. I would have no problem with being labeled a "Latin" as I feel totally comfortable with the "Latin" (i.e. Latin-American) culture, and speak both Spanish and Portuguese fluently. As a matter of fact, in the United States, I can "pass" for "Latin" culturally, but I know full well that what I am doing is "passing" (an important term in North-American anthropology, meaning "to appear to belong to another racial/cultural/ethnic group than one's own").

Furthermore, having been an anthropology maven since the tender age of fourteen, I have always known that "Caucasian" is not synonymous with either "white" or "European" in traditional physical anthropology, and that, for example, Ethiopians or South Indians are as Caucasian as the Swedes and Finns, even if their skin tone is jet-black. (While the classifications of traditional physical anthropology have been rendered nearly meaningless by more recent genetic studies, as Jorge Stolfi correctly points out, they still maintain a certain degree of broad usefulness.)

For better or for worse, Americans have traditionally been obsessed with separating whites from blacks (remember the "one-drop rule" or the "paperbag test" and other such racist yardsticks), but not so much with creating too many distinctive categories. Only in recent decades, such terms as "Asian/Pacific Islander" (a broad category including East Asians, South-East Asians, plus all the native people of Oceania) or "Hispanic" (a cultural category, spanning any combination of Native American, European, and African genetic descent) have become common. But the increasing numbers of people of North-African, Southwest Asian, and South Asian descent continue to defy easy classification. And as for the term "Mediterranean," you hear Americans apply it to a cuisine, a diet, a lifestyle, but never in opposition to "Caucasian."

In conclusion, without getting lost in too many details, I would like to propose amending the above passage as follows:

in common usage and political contexts, especially in North America, Caucasian usually means a white person of European descent, excluding people with Asian, African, or Middle-Eastern origin.

(NOTE: An analogous correction should be made in the article "Caucasian race".}

Pasquale 22:09, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Following a couple of recent contributions, the wording of the paragraph referred to above has changed, although not necessarily for the better. A rather wordy paragraph now claims that "in common usage and political contexts, Caucasian refers to light-complexioned people indigenous to, or descended from Europe, northern Africa, southwest Asia, and the Indian subcontinent. In North America, Caucasian usually means a white person of northern, eastern and western European descent, excluding people with significant Asian, African, or American Indian ancestry." This paragraph brings together the meaning from traditional physical anthropology (in the first half) with the common meaning of "white" (in the second half). However, in the second half, southern Europeans are again left out, although the last sentence does not specifically excludes them. With all due respect, I would say this rewording actually adds to the confusion.

Also, the word "censitary" used in the third bullet (and linked to "Census") is not an English word.

And, finally, the reference to "a Latin designation such as "Varietes Caucasia," (sic)" in the second bullet is truly puzzling. I looked back at the history and suspect this term was first introduced by Levzur, who, however, correctly spelled the first word as "Varietas" (a later editor must have accidentally changed that to "Varietes" which is not Latin). The second word should be "Caucasica" (this is the correct Latin adjective, as in the bacterial species "Borrelia caucasica"), however "Caucasia" is conceivable (the Latin Wikipedia, for example, includes a reference to "Linguae Ibero-Caucasiae" with no further information), although it would indeed warrant the use of "(sic)" after it. This is all rather puzzling and hardly neutral encyclopedia information.

P.S. I did some additional research. Although the more correct Latin adjective would have been "Caucasica" (widely attested since antiquity), J. F. Blumenbach apparently used the term "Varietas Caucasia" (or "Caucasia Varietas") for his definition of the "Caucasian race."

Pasquale 20:48, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, the original Latin adjective appears to be Caucasius (http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%237163) (the feminine Caucasia agrees with 'varietas'). Caucasica would be something that appeared after the Roman period. Don't trust everything you read in taxonomic species names: Biologists will say just about anything ;p The adjective ending in -ius/-ia/-ium appears in some other national adjectives, such as Armenius (Armenian), Aegyptius (Egyptian), and Atropatius (Azerbaijani). —Muke Tever (la.wikipedia and la.wiktionary sysop) 23:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Circular link

This page had a circular link (Caucasian type is a redirect back to Caucasian). I have left it unlinked, since it seems to be a term distinct from Caucasian race. — Danc 14:07, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)