Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Wed 20 Apr 2005 15:32 Post subject: Phenotypes of Middle Easterners and North Africans
Does anyone know what the range of phenotypes is for Middle Easterners and North Africans? I would guess, but I don't really know, that they can differ widely, from very African-appearing to very European appearing. Also, does anyone know how they designate themselves? I wonder if members of the same family who have different phenotypes designate themselves according to phenotype, as many Latin Americans do.
I recently read (on a message board) that Egyptians have no sub-Saharan DNA. I can't help but believe that this is absolute drivel. Surely there must have been admixture between Nubians / Ethiopians and Egyptians all throughout Egyptian history. I don't really know any Egyptians, so I can't judge from appearances.
Posted: Wed 20 Apr 2005 15:59 Post subject: Phenotypes of Middle Easterners and North Africans
I suppose it depends on where they are from. Some can be extremely European looking, especially those from the Levant (Syria, Lebanon). People don't know that folks like football player Doug Flutie, singer Tiffany and actor Vic Taybak (spelling) are actually Arab American. Their families are probably from Syria, Lebanon or Palestine originally.
The ones from the Gulf can be very diverse in appearance, from Prince Bandar Bin Sultan to near European. The same probably applies to many parts of North Africa as well.
Of course this doesn't include phenotypes of other non-Arabs in the Middle East like Oriental Jews, Armenians, Persians and others.
Heres a link to a related discussion from Gene Expression:
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Wed 20 Apr 2005 17:22 Post subject: Thanks...
That does answer many of my questions, including the one about the Egyptians.
Regarding phenotypes of Turks, I have seen many who look European. I've also seen some who have more typical Semitic or Arabic facial features with very dark complexions. Occasionally, I'll see one that looks slightly Negroid. Perhaps sub-Saharan admixture occurred there too during the Arab slave trade? I guess it must have.
Posted: Wed 20 Apr 2005 17:58 Post subject: Re: Thanks...
William wrote:
That does answer many of my questions, including the one about the Egyptians.
Regarding phenotypes of Turks, I have seen many who look European. I've also seen some who have more typical Semitic or Arabic facial features with very dark complexions. Occasionally, I'll see one that looks slightly Negroid. Perhaps sub-Saharan admixture occurred there too during the Arab slave trade? I guess it must have.
\\\\
This leads to another question: why are Turks often seen as non-white and Armenians and Greeks seen as white? I doubt most could tell the difference among them. Could it be religion (Christian v.s. Muslim)? Or perceptions that Greeks and Armenians are white by virtue of their success overseas?
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Wed 20 Apr 2005 19:07 Post subject:
Yes, this is strange. Perhaps the cultural and religious differences are enough to cause the Turks to be labeled as non-white. Of course, I have encountered individuals who don't consider any southern European or peripheral European as white. Some don't even consider eastern Europeans as white. It is very odd, this designation of "white," as it is applied in America.
Other interesting questions are:
Are phenotypically white, historically European populations such as Albanians and Serbians considered non-white if they are Muslims?
Why are phenotypically white Latinos/Latinas often not considered white, when they are totally insistinguishable from Europeans? The "Hispanic" or "Latino" labels are cultural, not racial, but people in America apparently use them as though they were racial terms. A Latino can be of any race.
CREATING "CAUCASIANS
OR FINDING ALLIES AGAINST "THE RISING TIDE OF COLOR"
Between the 1920s and the 1960s concerns of "the major divisions" would so overwhelm the national consciousness that the "minor divisions," which had so preoccupied Americans during the period of massive European immigration, would lose their salience in American culture and disappear altogether as racially based differences. Indeed, between the mid-1920s and the end of World War II, "Caucasian" as a "natural" division of humanity became part of a popular national catechism. Scientists "apply" the term "race" only to the broadest subdivisions of mankind, Negro, Caucasian, Mongolian, Malayan, and Australian," explained a 1939 handbook for high school teachers. "ALL THESE SCIENTISTS AGREE THAT NO NATION CAN BE CALLED A RACE," the text emphasized, self-consciously undoing the notions of "Aryan" and "Semitic" integrity.
Jacobson believes that the massive migrations of African Americans from the rural South to the urban North and West between the 1910s and the 1940s produced an entirely new racial alchemy in those sections. Mid-century civil rights agitation on the part of African Americans - and particularly the protests against segregation in the military and discrimination in the defense industries around World War II - nationalized Jim Crow as the racial issue of American political discourse. Both the progressive and the regressive coalitions that formed around questions of segregation and desegregation solidified whiteness as a monolith of privilege; racial differences within the white community lost their salience as they lost their reference to important power arrangements of the day. And, finally, events in Nazi Germany, too, exerted a powerful influence on public opinion.
Jim Crow whitened people who would not otherwise have been "white." When four dusky Armenians petitioned in court for "white" status after a lower Massachusetts court found them to be "Asiatic" and thus ineligible for citizenship, the Circuit Court judge In Re Halladjian (1909) ruled in their favor by citing Southern segregation statutes that placed Armenians on the "white" side of the line. They were suspiciously dark, but claimed no relationship to the despised "Negro."
Increased uprisings and demands for independence in Europe's African, Caribbean and Asian colonies, as well as the rise of non-white nations such as Japan and China, impressed upon many "white" elites the need for a reconstruction of the "white race." In other words, there were not enough "superior" Nordics to fight off all these "colored" peoples. More "white races" had to be invited into the "white" club with full membership. Lothrop Stoddard's The Rising Tide of Color against White World Supremacy (1920) and Reforging America (1927) sounded the call to "white" solidarity. There had to be some sense of shared destiny among Nordics, Alpines and even Mediterraneans if the "white race" was to survive the "white civil war" of World War I, the Bolshevik Revolution's challenge to European capitalism and civilization, and the insistent demands of colonized "colored" peoples for independence and equality. Note the similarity between this reasoning and colonial America's need to create a sense of European solidarity against slaves and Indians.
The treatment of race in the sciences underwent fundamental changes in the years between the eugenic triumph of 1924 and the post-World War II period. Social scientists such as Ashley Montagu, Ruth Benedict and Julian Huxley proclaimed "race" and "racial purity" to be myths. However, there was a double standard that is still inherent in American "racial" liberalism that Jacobson could have given more emphasis. Concepts such as the "Aryan race" or the idea that Jews, Mediterraneans, Germans, etc. constituted different races was denounced in forceful, moral terms. Students were told to NOT see those groups as "races." If they did, then their own moral blindness and intellectual stupidity were at fault. At the same time, they were told that the "purity" of the "white race" was false and that it was nonsensical to describe someone with a small amount of "black" ancestry as "Negro." However, scholars would simply blame "society" for those beliefs and encouraged their students to use those myths as if they were true. We still see their handiwork. If you accuse a "liberal" scholar of putting the "African American" label on any person he suspects of "black blood," regardless of how they saw themselves or how they were accepted within their own communities, he will smile condescendingly and say some version of, "Of course, I know better, but society..." However, if a student uses "Aryan" as a racial term or refers to Germans, Jews, Italians, etc. as "races," he will go to great pains to correct the student as an individual. If the student persists, social and academic censure will follow. In other words, academia takes responsibility for making sure that the "hierarchy of white races" does not resurface. In the case of forced hypodescent, however, they blame "society" and pretend to be helpless.
Jacobson shows that the most liberal scholars of "race relations" de-legitimized the old hierarchy of "white" races in order to replace it with the equally unscientific myth of "three great races" or "divisions of mankind" - the Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid" (sometimes adding the Australoid, or Australian aboriginal). They took pains to take their "knowledge" to elementary and high schools, instructing teachers throughout the nation to emphasize the idea of one unified "Caucasian" race when before there were Irish, Jewish, Slavic, etc. "races." Imagine what could happen if they took the same pains to denounce forced hypodescent and "white racial purity" with the same fervor they used to intellectually destroy the "Aryan race."
The intellectual reworking of "race" reached its zenith in The Race Concept (1950, 1952), a series of statements hammered out by the world scientific community under the auspices of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Again, it promoted contradictions. The human race is characterized by an "essential and undeniable unity," yet there are "three great races" (Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid). Much of this work is devoted to attacking the doctrine of the "Aryan" race, especially the traditional belief that Jews are a "race." The method for doing this was to emphasis the "whiteness" of Jews and free them from the implied stigma of Asiatic or other non-white descent. The genocide suffered by European Jews was the moral foundation upon which the denunciation of the concept of Jews as "non-Aryan" or "non-white" was promoted as the moral responsibility of both institutions and individuals. Notice that, if you use the terms, "Jewish race," or "Aryan race," most people (especially if they're educated) will take individual responsibility for correcting you. They rarely feel such responsibility for correcting those who espouse the "one drop" myth - probably because the people who are the official arbiters of what is and is not "racist" ("black" and "white liberal" elites) support it.
Among the self-conscious popularizations of this new, post-Nazi racial economy of "difference" was a public exhibit entitled "Races of Mankind" based on Ruth Benedict's pamphlet of the same name. It was developed by the Cranbrook Institute of Science in 1943 and purchased by the American Missionary Association as a traveling show for use by any group "seeking o promote interracial understanding and goodwill through the medium of education." The main points of the exhibit were: 1) Nationalities are not races; (2) Jews are not a race; (3) There is no "Aryan" race; (4) the "Negro" is racially mixed (as opposed to that former "mongrel" the Mexican or other Hispanics); (5) There are three great "races" of mankind - white, black and yellow; (6) the "Caucasian" race has darker (West Asiatic) and lighter (European) branches. This was a conscious effort to expand the "white race" even further - to include Turks, Central Asians, Middle Eastern and North African peoples under the "Caucasian" umbrella. We still see this today in affirmative action forms that define "white" for us. The stigmatization of racial mixture as "Negro" is still with us. When many "white" mainstream newspapers editorialized against the "multiracial" census category, the repeated refrain was that all "blacks" are racially mixed (implying that "whites" are "pure" with Hispanics and their thoroughly mixed racial ancestry conveniently disappearing).
Posted: Thu 21 Apr 2005 15:42 Post subject: Phenotypes of Middle Easterners and North Africans
William wrote:
Other interesting questions are:
Are phenotypically white, historically European populations such as Albanians and Serbians considered non-white if they are Muslims?
In New York there are a lot of Albanians. Most are Muslim, but a large minority is Christian. A neighborhood I used to live in the Bronx had one of the largest concentrations of Muslims in that borough. Most don't know that they are primarily Europeans from Albania.
With regards to the racial status of Albanians, based on my own experience, some people (white and non-white) see them as minorities. This is due primarily to the false equation of Muslim with non-white or non-European and the behavior of some people in the Albanian community: blood feuding, reputation for violence, etc. Additionally, some Albanians live in low-income areas in New York which reinforces the notion that they are non-white or minorities.
In actuality, very few people could tell the difference between an Albanian and, say, an Italian or Yugoslavian. But this perception that they are less white than other Europeans or not white at all still persists in some people's minds. Many people are unaware that Albania is in Europe and many of them are in fact not Muslim at all.
Indeed many people don't know that swarthy comedian/actor John Belushi was an Albanian Christian. Most wouldn't consider him non-white, but then many probably see him and his brother Jim Belushi as old fashioned white ethnics.
I remember mentioning their Albanian background to my work mate who expressed surprise at this fact. In his mind Albanians are all Muslim and consequently must look completely different from "regular" white people.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 22 Apr 2005 15:59 Post subject:
William wrote:
Yes, this is strange. Perhaps the cultural and religious differences are enough to cause the Turks to be labeled as non-white. Of course, I have encountered individuals who don't consider any southern European or peripheral European as white. Some don't even consider eastern Europeans as white. It is very odd, this designation of "white," as it is applied in America.
William, interesting discussion. Before WWII, many Italians were not considered to be white. Particularly in the South. Though if you look at a census from 1900, they were tabulated as white. You are correct.
William wrote:
Are phenotypically white, historically European populations such as Albanians and Serbians considered non-white if they are Muslims?
I would say the answer is a resounding No. Albania is located right across the Adriatic Sea from Italy. and actually borders Italy and Greece. So they are most definetely white Europeans, regardless of their religious faith. A part of Turkey is located in Europe proper...Istanbul is located in both Europe and Asia proper. I have worked with several Turks and they were no doubt white and identified as such. Persians (Iranians), Afghans and North Indians are descended from the Aryan tribes. Many Arabic people consider themselves Caucasian, though not European. ODR blacks love to claim Arabs as "people of colour". Some will go along with it if it goes along with their agenda, but give them a chance to "leave" ("POC" categorization), many will.
gwtapper2000 wrote:
In actuality, very few people could tell the difference between an Albanian and, say, an Italian or Yugoslavian. But this perception that they are less white than other Europeans or not white at all still persists in some people's minds. Many people are unaware that Albania is in Europe and many of them are in fact not Muslim at all.
Posted: Fri 22 Apr 2005 17:50 Post subject: Phenotypes of Middle Easterners and North Africans
Yep, born and bred.....I spent my early years in the South Bronx across the Harlem River from Washington Heights and we moved in '74 to the Northeast Bronx right near Yonkers and Mount Vernon in an area called Wakefield. I live in Arlington, Virginia now.
I would add that multiculturalists and others are just as likely to see Arabs as people of color too. I believe many if not most Americans assume that all Arabs are Muslim and because of that (whether they love them or hate them) they are people of color. Just like many pro/anti Israel types assume that all Israeli Jews are European and only the Ethiopian Jews are non-European.
I suspect some Arabs opt out of the white or non-white dichotomy and some don't. Possibly where they come from in the Arab world influences how they see themselves racially once they get here. Religion may play a small role in this too as well how others perceive them.
Posted: Wed 11 May 2005 14:05 Post subject: Images of North Africans: Nubians
People of northern Sudan and southern Egypt.
With a history and traditions which can be traced to the dawn of civilization, the Nubian first settled along the banks of the Nile from Aswan south of Egypt to the 6th cataract just south of Khartoum (capital of Sudan).
Along this great river they developed one of the oldest and greatest civilizations in Africa. Until they lost their last kingdom (Christian Nubia) only 5 centuries back the Nubians remained as the main rivals to the other great African civilization of Egypt. This great civilization is one of the main concerns of contemporary archaeologists, scholars, museums and universities around the world.
Although Sudan had remained the main homeland of Nubians through their long history, many of their descendants today Egypt. But still the majority of Nubians of today are Sudanese. With only a population of slightly above 300,000 they are a minority in both countries. Nevertheless being of African descent they resemble other Sudanese people more than Egyptians.
Nubians in both Sudan and Egypt have suffered a lot from intentional overlooking to their history and culture as well as displacement, relocation due to flooding and inundation of their homeland by dams constructed south of Egypt. During this century the Nubian homeland had been inundated three times, however the 1960 Nubian exodus is the most painful to all Nubians. Following the construction of Aswan High Dam in 1960 the land of Nubia between Aswan in Egypt and the 4th cataract in Sudan (main area of Nubians) was the subject of flooding and inundation. Nubians were displaced and relocated in other areas in both Sudan and Egypt. Great Nubian monuments and historical sites were drowned and lost for good.
The influx of Arabs to Egypt and Sudan had contributed to the suppression of the Nubian identity following the collapse of the last Nubian kingdom in 1900. A major part of the Nubian population were totally arabized or claimed to be arabs (Jaa'leen-the majority of Northern Sudanese- and some Donglawes in Sudan, Kenuz and Koreskos in Egypt). However all Nubians were converted to Islam, and Arabic language became their main media of communication in addition to their indigenous old Nubian language. The unique characteristic of Nubian is shown in their culture (dress, dances, traditions and music) as well as their indigenous language which is the common feature of all Nubians.
The distinguished and soft rhythms of the Nubian music and songs are borrowed by other ethnical groups in Sudan. In Egypt these rhythms are commonly used by some Egyptian-Nubian who sing in Arabic. With its very distinctive chantings and intonation the Nubian songs and music has a noticeable acclamation and acceptance among non-Nubian Sudanese and Egyptians.
Nubian traders at the Daraw camel market, southern Egypt.
The Nubian People
Location: Historically Nubia extended from Dongola, in northern Sudan, up the Nile to Aswan in southern Egypt. Today Nubians are concentrated in three cities: Kom Ombo in Southern Egypt, and Wadi Halfa and Khashm el-Girba in Sudan.
History: Nubians have a proud and rich heritage. They existed long before the pharaohs, and were once a Christian people. In 580 AD, Christianity became the official religion of Nubia.
Eight years after the death of Mohammed in 632 AD, Arab conquerors carried Islam into Egypt. Over the next two years, Muslim Arabs invaded Nubia. After conquering the Nubian city of Dongola, the Arab general made a treaty with the Nubian king. This treaty re-established trade along the Nile routes, and allowed Nubia to remain Christian for the next six centuries. Terms of this treaty required the Nubians to send 400 slaves per year to the Arabs, while the Arabs returned horses, cloth, and other goods.
Nubia gave way to Islam in the 16th Century as the last Christian church was closed. As it is illegal for Muslims to enslave a fellow Muslim, conversion freed the Nubians from the bond of slavery.
The Aswan Dam was built in stages beginning in 1902. Completion of the High Dam in the 1960s formed Lake Nasser, and flooded the Nubian homelands. Nubians in Egypt were relocated to the Kom Ombo area, north of Aswan. Nubians in Sudan were moved to Khashm el-Girba. Some Nubians remained in the Wadi Halfa area in far northern Sudan.
[/img]
Last edited by gemini072 on Wed 11 May 2005 15:39; edited 3 times in total
Posted: Wed 11 May 2005 14:31 Post subject: The Beja of Sudan
The Beja, a nomadic people group with a million and a half members who live in the northeastern portion of the African nation of Sudan.
Eastern Sudan has been the homeland of the Beja since the days of the pharaohs 4,000 years ago. Despite contact with the Egyptians, along with Greeks and Romans, it was the Muslims who finally had a real and lasting impression on the Beja. Although the Beja had partially accepted Christianity in 500 A.D., their conversion was only skin deep and beginning in 640 A.D., when Arabs first invaded Sudan, the Beja began to gradually adopt the Islamic faith. The Arabs did not conquer Sudan, and although many Beja tribes still do not speak Arabic, Islam left a lasting impact on their lifestyle, customs and religious practices.
In general, the Beja have always rejected authority and they greatly value their nomadic freedom. For the most part they have not changed their lifestyle or practices in the last 1,500 years
Nationality: noun: Sudanese (singular and plural)
adjective: Sudanese
Ethnic groups: black 52%, Arab 39%, Beja 6%, foreigners 2%, other 1%
Religions: Sunni Muslim 70% (in north), indigenous beliefs 25%, Christian 5% (mostly in south and Khartoum)
Languages: Arabic (official), Nubian, Ta Bedawie, diverse dialects of Nilotic, Nilo-Hamitic, Sudanic languages, English
note: program of "Arabization" in process
Last edited by gemini072 on Wed 11 May 2005 14:58; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Wed 11 May 2005 14:41 Post subject: Black or white? Egyptian immigrant fights for black classifi
Black or white? Egyptian immigrant fights for black classification
July 16, 1997
Web posted at: 4:22 a.m. EDT (0822 GMT)
From Correspondent Joan MacFarlane
DETROIT (CNN) -- An Egyptian immigrant is suing the U.S. government because they've told him he's white when his entire life he's been black.
Mostafa Hefny was born in Egypt and has always been proud of his Egyptian culture and his African ancestry. But when Hefny immigrated to America, the U.S. government told him he was no longer a black man.
"I was not told by Immigration that I was white until I passed the exam for citizenship and then I was told I am now white," he explains.
Hefny initially laughed when told of his new racial classification, but he's no longer chuckling. He recently filed suit against the U.S. government to get his race classification changed back from white to black.
"It hurts me. It definitely hurts me," Hefny says. "It hurts me because I am unable to reconcile my reality as a black person."
In addition to the emotional hurt, Hefny says that when the government changed his race, they also changed his social status.
"Definitely, I would've had more opportunity for advancement and even for hiring had I been considered black," he says. "I was prevented from applying and requesting positions and other benefits for minority person because I knew I was legally white."
Origin determines race
One of the problems with the naturalization process, in Hefny's opinion, is that race is classified by geographic location and not ancestry. That's part of the immigration process his lawsuit hopes to change.
The lawsuit targets Directive Number 15 of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. The directive defines black as a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. A white person is defined as having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa or the Middle East.
"In the late '60s and early '70s, they found that different agencies were using different definitions for the same categories of people, and they thought it was important to have comprehensibility across federal agencies," explains Sally Katzen of the OMB.
The OMB is hoping to change the way they define races by revamping the troublesome directive.
"The principle we thought very important is self-identification," Katzen says. "I think that it is almost beyond dispute that an individual should identify himself or herself rather than have someone else do it."
Although it seems the government agrees with Hefny in principle, it refuses to respond publicly to his lawsuit. He expects that response later this year.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Wed 11 May 2005 15:03 Post subject: Utterly ridiculous...
This is yet another example of America's laughably stupid classification system. A man who is visibly black is considered white because he is Egyptian, since Middle Easterners / North Africans are considered white here, no matter what. Yet, white Latin Americans are considered "Hispanic," a designation which in reality has no racial overtones, only cultural, but is used and understood by many to be a racial designation. And, phenotypically white Americans with some black ancestry are considered black, when they should be considered white; similarly, Americans who display a mixed Afro-European appearance should have the ability to consider themselves mixed, yet, again, they are classed as black. I just don't get it.
Last edited by William on Wed 11 May 2005 16:26; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Wed 11 May 2005 16:07 Post subject: Re: Phenotypes of Middle Easterners and North Africans
G-Man wrote:
Yep, born and bred.....I spent my early years in the South Bronx across the Harlem River from Washington Heights and we moved in '74 to the Northeast Bronx right near Yonkers and Mount Vernon in an area called Wakefield. I live in Arlington, Virginia now.
I would add that multiculturalists and others are just as likely to see Arabs as people of color too. I believe many if not most Americans assume that all Arabs are Muslim and because of that (whether they love them or hate them) they are people of color. Just like many pro/anti Israel types assume that all Israeli Jews are European and only the Ethiopian Jews are non-European.
I suspect some Arabs opt out of the white or non-white dichotomy and some don't. Possibly where they come from in the Arab world influences how they see themselves racially once they get here. Religion may play a small role in this too as well how others perceive them.
In the last 5 years I've heard alot from Italian & Arab-American associations of trying to move away from a white label to identifying more specifically as who they are. I have a site for the Arab American Association that I'll post as soon as I can find it.
Posted: Wed 11 May 2005 17:49 Post subject: Re: Phenotypes of Middle Easterners and North Africans
gemini072 wrote:
In the last 5 years I've heard alot from Italian & Arab-American associations of trying to move away from a white label to identifying more specifically as who they are. I have a site for the Arab American Association that I'll post as soon as I can find it.
I wonder though how representative these organizations' opinions are in their own communities.
You'll probably find many Arabs-Christian or Muslim-playing the non-white role (when it suits them), but I doubt if most Italian-Americans will move away from a white label. As a people they see themselves as white people, albeit whites who are "different" from other white people. Non-Italians in this country see them the same way.
Having gone to school and lived around a number of them, telling them they are not white may get you on their bad side.
I know, though, in New Orleans-at least when the first Sicilians arrived there-they were seen as nonwhites because of their dark complexions, strange ways, their association with blacks (including intermarriage) and their taking jobs, like sugar cane cutter, etc., reserved for blacks. Many were even lynched in Louisiana. Today I doubt their descendants in Louisiana behave the same way.
Posted: Wed 11 May 2005 18:35 Post subject: Re: Phenotypes of Middle Easterners and North Africans
G-Man wrote:
gemini072 wrote:
In the last 5 years I've heard alot from Italian & Arab-American associations of trying to move away from a white label to identifying more specifically as who they are. I have a site for the Arab American Association that I'll post as soon as I can find it.
I wonder though how representative these organizations' opinions are in their own communities.
You'll probably find many Arabs-Christian or Muslim-playing the non-white role (when it suits them), but I doubt if most Italian-Americans will move away from a white label. As a people they see themselves as white people, albeit whites who are "different" from other white people. Non-Italians in this country see them the same way.
Having gone to school and lived around a number of them, telling them they are not white may get you on their bad side.
I know, though, in New Orleans-at least when the first Sicilians arrived there-they were seen as nonwhites because of their dark complexions, strange ways, their association with blacks (including intermarriage) and their taking jobs, like sugar cane cutter, etc., reserved for blacks. Many were even lynched in Louisiana. Today I doubt their descendants in Louisiana behave the same way.
I've seen a number of talks on this, Italian Identity, many are questioning what have they lost because of 'whiteness' many are questioning it. There is a book out called 'Are Italians White?" something like that (I have it) *all Italian writers, they deal with a lot of different topics, even have a section of people with African ancestry or biracial people. I think in this day its a large part of those in a certain age group and those who are attached to 'multicultural' world ideas. Young people are exposed to more integration and everyone is 'ethnic' now a days. I don't think many Italian Americans in the past have 'gone against the grain' That is something else I've heard in different forums. And that is partial a reason why they became white. They are considered 'ethnic whites'
Posted: Wed 11 May 2005 18:45 Post subject: Re: Phenotypes of Middle Easterners and North Africans
William wrote:
Does anyone know what the range of phenotypes is for Middle Easterners and North Africans? I would guess, but I don't really know, that they can differ widely, from very African-appearing to very European appearing. Also, does anyone know how they designate themselves? I wonder if members of the same family who have different phenotypes designate themselves according to phenotype, as many Latin Americans do.
I recently read (on a message board) that Egyptians have no sub-Saharan DNA. I can't help but believe that this is absolute drivel. Surely there must have been admixture between Nubians / Ethiopians and Egyptians all throughout Egyptian history. I don't really know any Egyptians, so I can't judge from appearances.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
