Are people more racist in Europe than other parts of the world? After reading some posts by Euros it seems so. I know there are racists everywhere, but it seems to me that there is more racism in Europe. What do you all think?

Grillen - I suggest you take a good look at the rules of this forum. Such generalizations are against the rules.

I can answer that;

No, we're not. Without trying to turn this into an Europe vs. USA topic, I can bring up a counterpoint for every point you make that Europe is racist.

Pah, there are just as many racists in Europe as are in America.


And what posts have you noticed that are racist? If there were any, moderaters would have stopped them already.

After reading some posts by Euros it seems so.Even if we ignore the "Euros" :rolleyes: label, do you actually think that reading a few posts by various members of various European countries here gives you a valid overall impression of the extent of racism in several dozen European countries? Lordy, lordy...

Now you see Tal, this is the perfect situation to call somebody a nasty name :lol: . Some people need telling

I don't know why people keep making the mistake of calling us Euros as if we are one people. Get an education for crying out loud.

There are racists everywhere. And I wonder if the term 'Euros' is any more of a generalisation than the term 'Africans' or 'Asians".

Wherefor art thou from, grillen?

As far as I can tell the only race on BoM is the one to see who can post the most spam...er :doh: ...I mean intelligent, witty posts.

To add a little of a seriousness, I think Europeans may come off as more extreme on certain topics because we don't make a point of being politically correct. We're more into traditional politeness (which is in decline, anyway) than political correctness trends.

I don't want to be picky, but if real racism goes, Europe is no match. But I don't think you want to talk about recent history, though, so let's leave it at this.

There's racism and then there's racism. Overt racism, like the kind practiced by the KKK, is a dying phenomenon in most civilised nations. Open hostility or antipathy based on race is so loathesome that no-one (in polite company, at least) will or should be proud of it. That's not to say it's not there; it's just less organised and better hidden in most cases.

Then there's covert racism, which is typically implied or visible by effect rather than open antagonism. This is a problem everywhere, because everyone gets along better with the cultures and races they grew up with, and it is often necessary to be conscious of this so that one doesn't marginalise or disregard other people's voices. My country, for one, has a long and disturbing history of such bigotry (primarily against the Australian Aborigines and Asian immigrants). This, I feel, is a much bigger problem, and it's everywhere.

France may have brought it into the spotlight, but it's a gargantuan leap of faith to assume that it's necessarily worse in Europe because of this. Australia and the US are comparatively homogenous next to continental Europe. That hasn't stopped either nation from establishing an economic order which has benefited Caucasians and marginalised others. While I would not suggest that such arrangements have necessarily been deliberate and purposive, it's hard to argue with decades of demographic information, mortality rates, levels of income and rates of incarceration.

France may have brought it into the spotlight, but it's a gargantuan leap of faith to assume that it's necessarily worse in Europe because of this. Australia and the US are comparatively homogenous next to continental Europe. NS - didnt you mean to say that the people of Australia and the US are heterogenous in nature, when compared to the homogenous nations of Europe (or other nations for that matter)? Or have I just had too much party yesterday and dont get you point? :D

Compared to Europe as a whole rather than individual countries, it is more heterogenic than US as a whole. US compared to any individual Europen country is more heterogenic in turn.

Ah. Thanks for clearing that up.

edit -- Ditto, NS.

Dendri - I was under the impression that Europe, as a whole, is more culturally and ethnically diverse than Australia or the US (or at least, that distinct groups are more concentrated, more identifiable or hold greater local influence than scattered populations in the other two countries). The difference is that continental Europe is not comprised of just one nation, and there have been centuries to build up grudges, feuds or general resentment between nations. I imagine that each nation in Europe is more homogenous, however. Having never been there, I could be wildly off the mark.

Plus, as appears to be evident from this thread at least, Europeans are more inclined to say what they mean and mean what they say.

EDIT: Yeah, what Susi said...

Even so I am not sure if that is correct. Perhaps I should post no more, as I saw my bed at 9.00 am... but:

Can it be said that US citizens of, for example, Indian, African and European descend have more in common than British and Dutch Europeans? The Polish and German? Swedish and Greek (to go to the extremes)? Dont know what the other 'Euros' here might have to say to this, but to me Germany's nine neighbours arent at all that incomprehensible in matters of religion, traditions, habits etc (language left aside ;) ).

Depends on how much of their cultural background those ethnic groups in the US or Australia have retained, I suppose.

But I guess this is off the topic. On it goes with racist Europe.

Out of curiousity, why are people condemning the term "Euros"? Isn't it the same as Asians? I would have never guessed that it was a derogatory term.

Because it makes things sound as if we're talking about one race, one people, and i guess that's not how we prefer to be considered. A German is a European, and so is a Frenchman, but there's a huge difference between a German and a Frenchman, in every way. And the same goes for all other races in Europe, that's why it's kinda silly to put them all under one flag.

Well saying Euros is I guess a bit like calling Americans yanks. It's not exactly the nicest word around. Saying "Europeans" would be more correct though.

I'm not all that convinced that Europe is any more racist than the US or Australia. Prejudice exist in quite a large scale in all over the world, which is in my opinion very unfortunate.

Well saying Euros is I guess a bit like calling Americans yanks. It's not exactly the nicest word around.And if you call a southerner a yankee, you're just asking for trouble.

;)

The term "yankee" is thought to be a variation on the word "English," used by Native American Indians who had trouble pronouncing it. It became popular during the American Revolution when the English used it derisively to describe the New Englanders who were in a state of rebellion, particularly those around Boston, the center of the rebellion. The song "Yankee Doodle Dandy" was used by marching British soldiers as an insult to the colonial militiamen, sometimes called the "Minutemen." After the British defeat at Lexington and then after they were chased out of Boston, the Minutemen adopted it as one of their own fighting songs to taunt the British.

Much like the British, the Confederates of the South used the term derisively during the Civil War. And much like the British during the Revolution, the Confederates discovered how painful it was to underestimate those "Yankees."

@NonSequitur: American and European mindsets are quite a lot different. It's a bit more tricky with Australians and New Zealanders, but I think there's still a unique feeling that transpires from posts. At any rate, I think it's difficult for a European to follow American trains of thought and vice versa, leading to many misunderstandings and misconceptions, not to mention a couple of stereotypes.

I've read somewhere that the word Yankee originates from the early days when New York was crawling with Dutch and English settlers. The English came up with the name, which was more or less a curseword they made up for the Dutch. A lot of Dutch People happen to go by the name of Jan, and the English assumed we ate nothing but cheese. So there you have it....Jan Cheese, which later evolved into Yankees.

Is this true ?

Let me tell you something, almost every white person I've came into contact with in Birmingham is racist, especially those who live in the affluent areas of the city. Almost everybody in my college class is racist, anyone I've ever worked with has been racist, I'm not lying, or joking. I'm not talking about racism towards black people, because many of them are racist too. Most white/black people don't like Pakistanis/Indians/Bengalis in this country, especially people in Bradford/Leeds/Birmingham etc, and hatred is growing, especially since these guys are blowing themselves up on trains etc. Anyway, that's the way it is. In the UK, I think racism is very big, and it isn't getting any better.

I'm sorry but that's rubbish Sarevok. Who do you hang out with? The BNP members? I know very few people who are actually properly racist, and that's very VERY few. There are racists here, but not as many as you are trying to make out. I'd be ashamed of this country if racism was as bad as you're trying to make out...

It is that bad, have to be honest, sorry.

I'm sorry but I think you're wrong ;) . I work for a bloody builders manufacturer and deal closely with the warehouse guys and none of them are racist, I mean we have a Pakistani called Rajesh there who can barely speak English but I've never heard or seen anyone treat him differently he's just like one of the guys. None of my mates are racist really, in the nasty sense of it.
Don't get me wrong, people might say racist jokes or say things like 'I bloody hate Pakis' or things like that but most of it is just tongue-in-cheek and they don't really men it, as I say I don't know very few people who are actually properly racist.

Racism is not that bad in England, from my experience. Like Barmy, I worked with people of all sorts of races. Racism is far far worse in other parts of the world. Places like London are so multicultural, it's amazing.

'I bloody hate Pakis'That's still racism, and a sentence I hear about 20 times a day.

Well, perhaps it's different in Birmingham than in London, then.

TBH, I'm a little surprised Chandos or Tal didn't just shut down this thread; it's got enormous potential for rules-breaking, though people seem to be holding themselves back so far.

London? Visit Millwall, or Tottenham, and ask random people what they think of our Black/Asian communities.

Well, as far as shutting down the thread and potential for rules breaking, just about any thread in the Alleys has the potential. When it becomes actual, then the lock is put on it.

(Don't worry, Big Brother(s) are watching the thread, closely. ;) )

Theyll probably just look at you gone out and walk off mate, lol.
And theres a big difference in saying thigns tongue in cheek and not really meaning them and saying things maliciously and truly meaning them. People always seem to forget this these days...

I think something may have gotten lost in communication. Sarevok was talking about Birmingham and HB was talking about London; I think Barmy was talking about London too, since he lives there IIRC. So I'm thinking maybe it's just a matter of location, i.e. less in London, more in Birmingham. Though it does still depend on the individual; I have a hard time imagining that every single person in a particular community is racist. :rolleyes:

:hmm: BTW Sarevok, are you Black/Asian? Perspective can often skew things, and I imagine that the persecuted would see slightly more than there is, while someone on the other side (are Barmy and HB white?) would see slightly less. Combine the both and you can get quite the disparity.

The few people that I knew from Millwall WERE of Pakistani origin anyway, so I assume they think Pakistanis are OK. I'm not saying there were no racists, I'm just saying that I found the racism in London to be not all that bad, especially given that people of all sorts of cultures live there and everyone has a chance of getting a good job and making something of themselves. My office was full of people from all sorts of cultures so somebody must have not discriminated in giving them all a job.

Touchy topic indeed. I can only really comment on the U.S. First of all, if you look at census figures, the U.S. isn't that racilly diverse. The non-caucasian population is only about 30%. However, that is somewhat misleading, because it doesn't factor in several things. For example, people of Hispanic/Latino decent can be considered caucasian, and everyone from the middle east and India, are also technically, caucasian. So it's very difficult to say exactly what the breakdown is of race in the U.S. Yes, 70% of the country is caucasian, but the percentage is certainly lower if we say "caucasian and from European decent".

So I don't know if it's even correct to say if an Englishman is being insulting to a Pakistani that he is being a racist, as both the Englishman and Pakistani are both caucasian. It certainly reeks of bigotry and prejudice to dislike someone simply based on their country of origin, but I don't think that it's necessarily racist. As an example, it's considered OK for an African American to call another African American a n-----, although it's certainly not OK for someone of another race to do so.

The Hispanics are another race that's almost impossible to classify. There are significant contributions from three distinct gene pools in their population. I think everyone can agree that there are Hispanics that are as Caucasian as any European, while others appear decidedly African, and yet others whose ancestry traces back to the indiginous population of South America. So I don't even know what we can call them, if they are even a separate race, or a combination of three.

As far as I can tell, having lived in the north, south, and presently the middle portion of the eastern seaboard of the U.S., racism is slightly more prevalent in the south, in regards to both Hispanics and African Americans, although you find good and bad everywhere. In regards to Arabic and Indian populations, you don't see all that much of it. Keep in mind that as I have already stated, I don't know if such bigotry even qualifies as racism. It may be that we don't see much of it because these people make up a relatively small percentage of the population. It's almost impossible to tell exactly what percentage, as they all are classified as caucasian on the census forms, but I would guess that the Arabic/Indian populations in the U.S. cannot amount to more than 5% of the U.S. population combined.

I've read somewhere that the word Yankee originates from the early days when New York was crawling with Dutch and English settlers. The English came up with the name, which was more or less a curseword they made up for the Dutch. A lot of Dutch People happen to go by the name of Jan, and the English assumed we ate nothing but cheese. So there you have it....Jan Cheese, which later evolved into Yankees.

Is this true ? That has been one of the theories, since no one knows for sure. The one you suggest has been popular for many years. But scholars, in recent years have challenged that particular one. There was also a Dutch pirate in the late 1600s named Captain Yankee and that may also be connected with the Dutch origins of the term.

Yet, language scholars cannot connect the term "Yankee" - if it is an insult used against the Dutch - to New England, where there were mostly English. New Yorkers were never thought of as Yankees until after the Revolution. But New Englanders were called "Yankees" even before the Revolution. Why would the English settlers in New England be referred to by an insult directed at Dutch settlers in New York?

I have no idea how the term Yankee originated but it was used by the British early in the rebellion.

"During the War of Independence this song (Yankee Doodle Dandy) was sung with derision by the British troops about the American soldiers, however after the battle of Bunker Hill, the Americans took it up as a war cry."

From Here (http://nurseryrhymes.allinfoabout.com/yankee_doodle.html)

there's a huge difference between a German and a FrenchmanThere you have it: European history in a nutshell! :lol:

As to the Yankee issue, I've also heard the "Jan Kees" argument...

The Hispanics are another race that's almost impossible to classify. There are significant contributions from three distinct gene pools in their population. I think everyone can agree that there are Hispanics that are as Caucasian as any European, while others appear decidedly African, and yet others whose ancestry traces back to the indiginous population of South America. So I don't even know what we can call them, if they are even a separate race, or a combination of three. You are right, but I am sorry to say this confusion only exists because americans tend to be ignorant. Calling south americans - Caucasians and mestizos alike - Latins, or "Hispanics" is just nonsensical and historically inaccurate. As far as I am concerned, this issue only happens in the US.
I am appaled every time I hear someone like Jennifer Lopez being called a "Latin" - whom are a branch of the Indo-European Race. If you got your terms properly - and used them accurately - none of this misunderstanding would exist. Unless we are basing the notion of "White" by that of the original American settlers, which was to designate Northwestern Europeans. Then, indeed, south americans, mestizos and Latins alike, would not be considered White.
I say this because I have heard from Northwestern Europeans - a Dutch once for instance - things which implied they view South Europeans as a different Race from themselves, not properly White.

Well, the implied but never outspoken view in the north western part of Europe is that slavs arent properly "white" either and just one "step" above "blacks". We can shove it under the carpet all we like but there is a hierarchy between the arbitrary labels we call race. Ask anyone not of northwestern European descent how they perceive it if you do not believe me.

Extremely silly but a reality nonetheless.

I remember a high school social studies class where the one thing that stuck in my mind was about race.

Few people can claim to be of a "pure" race. Most of us are mixtures. Ethnic groups may exist but Race? There is only one species of human as far as I know. We got rid of the competition.

Few people can claim to be of a "pure" race. Most of us are mixtures. Ethnic groups may exist but Race? There is only one species of human as far as I know. We got rid of the competition. My thoughts exactly. The only way to sustain such stereotypes is to either invent new classifications (sub-races?) or assess and deal with people on the basis of ancestry. I remember reading about a place where that attitude was entrenched in a political ideology... and what it eventually led to.

Maybe eventually people will start to realise how baseless and counterproductive it is to categorise and differentiate people on the basis of race. We're all fundamentally the same basic meatbag organism.

Well, Svy, there are plenty of terms, pronounciations, etc that are inaccurate in any languange, not only American English. I mean, we also talk about the Dutch in Holland, rather than the Nederlanders in Nederland, and we say PAIR-is instead of pah-REE. The Hispanic/Latino thing is especially odd, given that someone from Spain wouldn't count as Hispanic. In some ways, it's all about tracking a disadvantaged group in the US, although I must admit having seen it abused a number of times, as when, say, a "hispanic" scholarship goes the wealthy son of parents whose bloodlines come direct from Spain.

The term "Caucasian" is also rather absurd, the brainchild of some 18th century German racial suprematist who thought for some reason that people from the Caucasus were the best looking of the "white race," and thus likely the purest starting point of the race.

With certain minor exceptions, such as reaction to certain drugs and susceptibility to certain diseases, the concept of race is genetically meaningless; that is, it really only has cultural meaning. Thus Alan Keyes complained that Barack Obama wasn't really "African-American" because his father came from Kenya; apparently for Alan one could only be African-American if one was decended from slaves in the US. And so, these terms operate more on a legal and cultural level than they do in actual or historical reality...

Unless we are basing the notion of "White" by that of the original American settlers, which was to designate Northwestern Europeans. Then, indeed, south americans, mestizos and Latins alike, would not be considered White. Well, from what I've heard, when speaking of races, we have the following:

Caucasian (white) - predominantly Europe, but also northern Africa, Arabia and India.
African (black) - pretty much the rest of Africa excepting the northern parts.
Asian - predominantly the far east, and more common in the southern areas.
Pacific Islander - The Pacific Island region, but also including Australia.
Native American - which includes all of the Americas, but also the Inuit populations, and even some parts of northeast asia.

Based on this, if you don't have any European ancestry, I do not think it is correct for Hispanics to refer to themselves as caucasian. The obvious reason that there is a distinct difference in racial naming in north and south America, is because in North America, we essentially whiped out the entire population of native people. In South America, the wars only went so far to gain dominion over the native people, and after that, we started seeing mixing of different races.

Aldeth, you are perhaps the first person I have ever encountered who considers the inhabitants of the Indian suncontinent to be the same general 'race' as the people from northwestern Europe. I bet Sarevok doesn't see it that way.

we essentially wiped out the entire population of native peopleWell, that might be a little bit of an exaggeration; currently about 2.5 million people identify themselves as "Native American" (not to mention all the interbreeding that occured...

The reason South Asians might have to identify themselves as "Caucasian" is that they are a recent immigrant group, and there isn't much of a history of their presence in the US. Thus very few of the stupid forms we have to fill out in the course of our daily lives have a box for "South Asian", so these people have to choose between "Caucasian", "Asian", or "Other"...

Aldeth, you are perhaps the first person I have ever encountered who considers the inhabitants of the Indian suncontinent to be the same general 'race' as the people from northwestern Europe.Well they are both descended from the Indo-European tribes that migrated from central asia (the precise location is uncertain) following two main routes of migration: one to western Europe, and the other to Iran (which derives its name from the word Aryan), and India. The Indo-European language of which Sanskrit is the closest descendant, has now ceased to be associated with any defined racial type. Sir William Jones recognized the similarities between Sanskrit and Greek and Latin, thereby allowing the possibility of extremely widespread early language families. The term Aryan (the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-Europeans: first attested by Vedic Sanskrit.) originates from the Sanskrit ārya 'noble' and the religious beliefs of the Aryans are recorded in ancient Hindu scriptures written in Sanskrit known as the vedas, and involved the worship of a plurality of divine beings. The Indian caste system seperates Aryans from the indigenous Dravidian peoples, who came to comprise the lowest of the four castes of Aryan society.

Well, the implied but never outspoken view in the north western part of Europe is that slavs arent properly "white" either and just one "step" above "blacks". We can shove it under the carpet all we like but there is a hierarchy between the arbitrary labels we call race. Ask anyone not of northwestern European descent how they perceive it if you do not believe me.

Extremely silly but a reality nonetheless. Yes, this prejudice has always been, and it is nothing new to me. However, I think while this "hierarchy" and bias exist, it is not an issue of being considered non-White, because, as a matter of fact, you can not get any "Whiter" than Russians or Polish. So, except for a few morons and idiots, like himmler, who called us mongols - and looked mongolic himself - this prejudice is more Cultural or whatever. Not that is makes a difference, as I think the botton line is Northwestern Europeans regard us as something else, which is not something I will call out against them, as the feeling is mutual, and I never bothered with prejudices anyway.
----------------------------------------------------

I remember a high school social studies class where the one thing that stuck in my mind was about race.

Few people can claim to be of a "pure" race. Most of us are mixtures. Ethnic groups may exist but Race? There is only one species of human as far as I know. We got rid of the competition. Well, that is what leftist scholars would want us to believe, but I dont buy it. I have read enough scientific data to support the existance of different Human Races.
There is this study of a Canadian scientist for instance... I will have to dig his name. Sorry, for some reason his name did slip from my mind.
As much as purity goes, I used to have a few genetical studies which dealt with the ethnical composition of Indo-Europeans in the European continent, and as far as Slavs are concerned, we are pretty much VERY homogeneous racially speaking. Most westerns had a good deal of homogenity as well. If anyone is interested, I can ask a friend of mine to look this out for me.
-------------------------------------------------------

My thoughts exactly. The only way to sustain such stereotypes is to either invent new classifications (sub-races?) or assess and deal with people on the basis of ancestry. I remember reading about a place where that attitude was entrenched in a political ideology... and what it eventually led to.

Maybe eventually people will start to realise how baseless and counterproductive it is to categorise and differentiate people on the basis of race. We're all fundamentally the same basic meatbag organism. Actually, these subraces already exist. Some pals of mine were heavily into this, and although I thought the subject interesting, it was never a priority of mine, so I am not a specialist or anything like, but I can tell you Caucasians are divided into many sub-races, amongst them: East Baltic, Hallstat Nordic, Noric, Nordic, Keltic Nordic, Battle Axe, Neo Danubian, Mediterranean, Alpine, Dinaric, etc...
---------------------------------------------------

Well, Svy, there are plenty of terms, pronounciations, etc that are inaccurate in any languange, not only American English. I mean, we also talk about the Dutch in Holland, rather than the Nederlanders in Nederland, and we say PAIR-is instead of pah-REE. The Hispanic/Latino thing is especially odd, given that someone from Spain wouldn't count as Hispanic. In some ways, it's all about tracking a disadvantaged group in the US, although I must admit having seen it abused a number of times, as when, say, a "hispanic" scholarship goes the wealthy son of parents whose bloodlines come direct from Spain. True. But I guess using the term Latin - which has a clear and unique definition everywhere else - to classify those people who come from South America, regardless if they are mestizos or pure blooded Spaniards alike is plain misleading. Not to mention it creates some unusual situations.
I was also under the impression that sometimes Spanish people get labelled as Hispanics. I remember reading Antonio Banderas complaining about that somewhere before... But I could be wrong.


The term "Caucasian" is also rather absurd, the brainchild of some 18th century German racial suprematist who thought for some reason that people from the Caucasus were the best looking of the "white race," and thus likely the purest starting point of the race.
I am not too sure who coined this term the first time in History. I do know one of the first to use it ostensively was Gobineau, who despite being French himself, was a Germanic supremacist as well.
As for White, I am fairly sure it was created by the first American settlers to distinguish themselves from the, well, rest.


With certain minor exceptions, such as reaction to certain drugs and susceptibility to certain diseases, the concept of race is genetically meaningless; that is, it really only has cultural meaning. Thus Alan Keyes complained that Barack Obama wasn't really "African-American" because his father came from Kenya; apparently for Alan one could only be African-American if one was decended from slaves in the US. And so, these terms operate more on a legal and cultural level than they do in actual or historical reality... I dont think it is merely a matter of susceptibility to diseases. Damn, if I can remember the name of that Canadian I will provide his full study. There is also the Bell Shaped Curve though.
-----------------------------------------------------

Aldeth,

Yes, you are right, as far as the denominations and everything, but my point was that there are pure blooded Caucasians in South America, descendent from Europeans, and they get labelled as "Latinos" regardless. Of course most of them are mestizos, mulatos though...
--------------------------------------------------

HB,

It might sound surprising, but read SatansBedFellow's post, as what he says is historically accurate. They look very different because the Aryans - which were the elite, thus the word meaning noble - were a tiny minority, and as time passed they mixed entirely with the dark masses they ruled.
Actually, Sanskrit is the closest to Russian. There are many simillar words.

Yes yes yes, I can accept that there may be some theoretical historical and genetic similarities between the subcontinental Asians and "Caucasians". My point was that I had never previously heard of anyone lumping Europeans and subcontinental Asians into the same category before, especially when you are talking about what is the most prevalent racial/cultural division that exists in the United Kingdom.

Also, given the fact that the Indians/Pakistanis/Sri Lankans/Bangladeshis etc probably make up the second largest "racial/cultural group" in the world (after the "Chinese Asians"), it seems even more odd that you are not referring to them separately.

All this goes to further highlight that so many of these divisions and groups are extremely arbitrary at best. This is why I always answer "Other" to my racial background when filling in forms.

The Indian caste system seperates Aryans from the indigenous Dravidian peoplesNot quite sure if that's true throughout India; IIRC, the Aryans didn't make as many inroads into the southern half of India as they made into the north. I think you can track it by whether a region speaks a Sanskrit-derived or a Dravidian language. [EDIT: actually, this isn't true; Dravidian languages in India are also very Sanskritized. A better track would probably be the influence of Farsi, the court language of the Mughals...] In addition, northern India was also repeatedly invaded from the North, buy Mongol tribes as well as the Muslims that set up the Mughal empire. For various reasons, the South was more successful in warding off these invations, though there was still alot of mixing (and many coastal areas in the South have lighter skin or eyes due to mixing with sailors from France, England, or Portugal). Just saying it's hard to determine caste based on skin color alone...

[ November 09, 2005, 16:00: Message edited by: Bion ]

HB,

Sure. I was going to mention, but I forgot, so let me do it now: That is why I think the term Caucasian is meaningless. Too broad and devoid of real racial/cultural meaning. For me Indo-European bears much more sense and significance.

I've been all over the world (very nearly) during my time in the US Navy. I've seen prejudice and racism everywhere I've ever visited.

The degree that racism is obvious is varied, but it still exists. Many people are so ingrained with racism in thier culture that they don't see it themselves. As an example, I know many people from the southern states that honestly believe the confederate flag is simply a symbol of regional pride -- yet it is also a symbol of racism.

I've been in countries where the store owners just ignore their non-local customers (or non-customers), simply pretending to be busy rather than help the foreigner. In another country I literally saw a sign that read "No Sailors or Dogs Allowed" in English -- the meaning was very clear.

Private clubs are an excellent way many localities exclude others -- it's still an accepted form of racism in many areas.

I've found that most people who don't see the prejudice are not a member of a minority race. Often people don't see anything wrong because it doesn't affect them negatively.

I agree with Undertaker. "Caucasian" is nonsense. Indo-European is good enough. Then again, "Caucasian" is probably a broader term, covering e.g. those European peoples which are not Indo-European.

The term “Caucasian” relates to one of the traditional divisions of humankind as developed by the German physiologist Blumenbach and others in the 19th century, Caucasian (or Caucasoid) included peoples covering a broad group of peoples from Europe, western Asia, India and North Africa. It is so named because Blumenbach believed that they originated in the Caucasus region.

I agree with Undertaker. "Caucasian" is nonsense.Indeed, the classification is outdated and the categories are now not generally accepted as scientific.

Try being 'Irish Traveller' in the UK, Ireland and US. A native race to Ireland, yet also the most discriminated race there, who have their own language (not gaelic) and way of life. Irish travellers usually have darker skin, darker hair and are usually confused with the 'Romas'. As I am a settled traveller, and half white, I never had the problems that my fellow people still experience. Even Travellers in the US have hard times and they are only 200,000 strong over there. And the Protestand and Catholic's think they have it tough here!

Idiots like Brad Pitt also help enforce the stupid stereotypes that the traveller community face (see Snatch).

All hail the gypsy races!

@Bion

(and many coastal areas in the South have lighter skin or eyes due to mixing with sailors from France, England, or Portugal). Just saying it's hard to determine caste based on skin color alone...Very true, but these are later developments and were not present at the origins of the formal caste system, as articulated in the Law Book of Manu; the popular indigenous term for caste is varna (Pali, vanna) which means ‘colour’ - so the system of social stratification was based on the factor of race.

Nevertheless, your points are entirely valid; as India has proved a rich and difficult subject of anthropological and sociological interpretation—one that resists simple accounts of caste practices.

[ November 09, 2005, 19:40: Message edited by: SatansBedFellow ]

I agree with Undertaker . "Caucasian" is nonsense. Indo-European is good enough. Then again, "Caucasian" is probably a broader term, covering e.g. those European peoples which are not Indo-European. Actually, that would be me, Svyatoslav. ;)
-------------------------------------------------


Try being 'Irish Traveller' in the UK, Ireland and US. A native race to Ireland, yet also the most discriminated race there, who have their own language (not gaelic) and way of life. Irish travellers usually have darker skin, darker hair and are usually confused with the 'Romas'. As I am a settled traveller, and half white, I never had the problems that my fellow people still experience. Even Travellers in the US have hard times and they are only 200,000 strong over there. And the Protestand and Catholic's think they have it tough here!

Idiots like Brad Pitt also help enforce the stupid stereotypes that the traveller community face (see Snatch).

All hail the gypsy races! Wait, what do you mean by "Irish Traveller"? Is that an euphemism to gypsy? Because, at least in Eastern Europe, their stereoptypes are welldeserved. You need to see how they behave in places like Slovakia, Czech Republic. It is a nasty sight! It is no surprise none is viewed with less regard and respect than romans in Eastern Europe.
If you dont mean gypsies, what exactly are these Irish travellers? Because I did see Snatch, and I was surprised to see Brad Pit play a gyspie with his looks - I dont mean his good looks, but his very European one.

Idiots like Brad Pitt also help enforce the stupid stereotypes that the traveller community face (see Snatch).Eh, not really; idiots who see Brad Pitt's performance in what is quite clearly a comedy film and then think that's an accurate depiction of the typical irish traveller, they are the problem.

I bloody hate pikies :p .

Meh if we weren't racist we wouldn't have separate countries.

Haha, interesting statement. We have different nations because of political, economical, and social/moral differences.

Although they can often take on similar appearances, I think that racism and nationalism are very distinct and different.

Although they can often take on similar appearances, I think that racism and nationalism are very distinct and different.They are closer than you think. A nationalist thinks his nation is superior to all others. A racist thinks the same about his race. The structur is the same. Only the subjects differ.

Haha, interesting statement. We have different nations because of political, economical, and social/moral differences.Aren't they the very things that define a race (aside from physical features)? I also find it interesting how there is a tendency (for people) to collect into groups of "like" thinking. It happens when we're little sproglets all the way to adulthood - we make friends and we tend to form little circles. There is trepidation at first when a new member joins the group. He/she has to be accepted by other members or they're kicked out. I find this very interesting. Is it an inherent part of our biological make up? It has definite evolutionary benefits.

Anyway, back on topic. No, Europe is no more racist than any other country.

I agree with Undertaker . "Caucasian" is nonsense. Indo-European is good enough. Then again, "Caucasian" is probably a broader term, covering e.g. those European peoples which are not Indo-European. Actually, that would be me, Svyatoslav. ;) True. I'm the only Undertaker on this board and I was not posting in this thread :p

Deyamn. What an embarrassment. Don't know what gave me the idea. Sorry, guys. Both of you. :p ;)

Touchy topic indeed. I can only really comment on the U.S. First of all, if you look at census figures, the U.S. isn't that racilly diverse. The non-caucasian population is only about 30%. However, that is somewhat misleading, because it doesn't factor in several things. For example, people of Hispanic/Latino decent can be considered caucasian, and everyone from the middle east and India, are also technically, caucasian. So it's very difficult to say exactly what the breakdown is of race in the U.S. Yes, 70% of the country is caucasian, but the percentage is certainly lower if we say "caucasian and from European decent". Well, those numbers are all important to the shampoo and hair-care industry. It's not to often that linguistic categories like Caucasian, African and Asian have an impact on shampoo. But it's not only the language that's different, the hair is different to. African hair is less lipid than Caucasian, while Asian is simply a lot more, an exuberant profusion.

"Caucasian" derives it's existence from the Parenthood of Old-Greek, Latin and Sanskrit. It was a bored British jurist who discovered the parenthood. That parenthood was a big brainer all over Europe, a hot-issue and fashionable topic for academics, bored upper-class housewives abd their conversation lexica and colonial-administrators around the 1850-1900s. It was Darwin that opened an argumentative way out that allowed "whites" to still feel like something special.

So I don't know if it's even correct to say if an Englishman is being insulting to a Pakistani that he is being a racist, as both the Englishman and Pakistani are both caucasian. It certainly reeks of bigotry and prejudice to dislike someone simply based on their country of origin, but I don't think that it's necessarily racist. As an example, it's considered OK for an African American to call another African American a n-----, although it's certainly not OK for someone of another race to do so. If there's a bar and on the bar a sign saying:"No Italians!", that is considered "racism". Why ? Just to make a point about the silliness of using the word "race" in connection with humans instead of dogs. It also helps having not had former race-based laws, that obviously had to define race somehow and make it look like a remotely rational concept. But it's only an ephemeral description based on random circonstances.

Besides, it's not that long ago that the Italians claimed to be "ariani", a higher race than the poor others around them. And of course, as "race" is a term with no meaning, there was nothing illogical about inventing their own race for themselves. In matters of race, anything goes.

Where I come from there's plenty of racism. And it's pretty sad how people say things starting with "I'm not a racist, but..."

I'd wager it's everywhere, though. The more education available, the less racism going on, probably. But still everywhere.

Although they can often take on similar appearances, I think that racism and nationalism are very distinct and different.As concepts, they are quite distinct. Historically and in practice, I'd argue that they have typically been quite closely linked.