Posted: Mon 21 May 2007 18:56 Post subject: Re: What is White?
pianoplayer111 wrote:
In America, "white" is often interpreted to mean blue-eyed blond people.
That might be the same in Latin America as well? to various degrees. Or at least in both places, the 'aryan' look to be the height of whiteness.
However, there are broader definitions of it. Some black folks and some white racists believe that it is impossible to have a brown-eyed, brown-haired white person without that person being "corrupted" by black blood. Some people feel that if a white person has curly hair or olive skin then that person is black. That is one example of the myth of racial purity in this country.
I guess it would depend on the exposure the 'race inspector' has to other ethnic groups. That description to many 'white person has curly hair or olive skin' that person would be thought to be Italian, Sicilian, Greek even Jewish -directly
It is difficult to say what "whiteness" is. Some would say it is all about appearance or phenotype. Others would say no, it is about how you're treated by society on a whole. There is no real definition of whiteness or blackness in my mind. Here is what I've observed over the years, however:
-Most in America perceive "white people" to be those of discernible European/Caucasian ancestry. If you're a blue-eyed blonde, that helps. If you have straight hair, even better.
I agree, especially with the latter part. I've talked about this before and Barbara(a Moderator on leave) who is of Puerto Rican & black American ancestry made certain comments about curly hair being a sign of ethnicity and straight hair equal to being seen as white.
If you happen to have dark hair or brown eyes you will mostly be seen as "nonwhite" despite any overwhelming European blood. I don't agree with this, but oh well...
-White people are often viewed as being socially dominant, the ones that all others aspire to emulate. Many minorities in America perceive whites as being the ones who reap all the benefits (i.e., white privilege) whether or not these whites are rich or poor.
Posted: Mon 21 May 2007 19:56 Post subject: White Anglo-Saxon Protestant
White Anglo-Saxon Protestant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from White Anglo Saxon Protestant)
Jump to: navigation, search
WASP is a term which originated in the United States. It is an acronym for White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.
The term does not have a precise definition and can be used to describe greatly differing sociological groups.[1] The WASP acronym originated in reference to White Americans with a history in the upper class establishment, who are alleged to form a powerful elite.[1] Some may use the term to describe any white person who does not claim any minority affiliation, regardless of their socio-economic status or actual ancestry.[1] However working class whites in the U.S. are not necessarily referred to as WASPs, even if they are Protestants of Anglo-Saxon descent.[1] "WASP" is used in Canada in much the same way as it is used in the U.S.A.
Today, in the U.S. the term white Christian male has come into use, as a result of diminished discrimination against Catholics and other non-WASP white males.[1] The term WASP also includes women, who regardless of ethnic heritage may face some extent of gender-based discrimination.
Strictly speaking, many people now referred to as "WASPs" are not Anglo-Saxon, that is the descendants of some Germanic peoples, who settled in Britain between the 5th century and the Norman Conquest. According to some sources, Anglo-Saxon ancestry is not even dominant in England, which is generally regarded as the Anglo-Saxon heartland.[2] However, in modern North American usage, WASPs may include Protestants, from Dutch, German, Huguenot (French Protestant), Irish, Scandinavian, Scottish, Scots-Irish and Welsh backgrounds.[2] Therefore, the term "WASP" is sometimes applied to individuals who are technically non-Anglo-Saxons, including people with:
Dutch origins, such as the Vanderbilt and Roosevelt families
German descent, such as the Rockefeller and Astor families.[3]
Huguenot descent, such as the Du Pont family
Scots-Irish origins, such as the Mellon family
The word white is redundant, since Anglo-Saxons — whether in the strict or popular sense of the term — are white.
“ The term WASP has many meanings. In sociology it reflects that segment of the U.S. population that founded the nation and traced their heritages to ... Western Europe... The term has largely negative connotations... Today... less than 25 percent of the U.S. population [is WASP]. Nevertheless they contine to... have disproportionate influence over... American institutions. The term... has become more inclusive. To many people, WASP now include most 'white' people who are not... members of any minority group (William Thompson & Joseph Hickey, 2005, Society in Focus).[1]
”
Usage of the term WASP has grown in other English-speaking countries, such as Canada and Australia, which were settled by members of similar ethnic groups. Beyond the English-speaking world, the term is sometimes used in a metaphorical sense, to refer to perceived elite social groups.
This is a very keen observation! The more that I think about this, "black" and "white" should be considered inappropriate ways to describe human beings in my opinion.
Why do you feel this way Sag? These descriptions may be entirely accurate in many cases.
The important part is that the concept of whiteness is made up, and I think that in most places it only exists to facillitate a white supremacist power structure, regardless of how exactly you define white.
Posted: Mon 21 May 2007 23:13 Post subject: Whiteness of a Different Color
Read this book for a good explanation of racial whiteness and its purpose, as well as the political reasons that forced white elites to invite more people into the "club."
Quote:
Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race by Matthew Frye Jacobson. Harvard University Press, 1998.
Posted: Tue 22 May 2007 12:20 Post subject: Re: Whiteness of a Different Color
Powell wrote:
Read this book for a good explanation of racial whiteness and its purpose, as well as the political reasons that forced white elites to invite more people into the "club."
Quote:
Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race by Matthew Frye Jacobson. Harvard University Press, 1998.
This is a very keen observation! The more that I think about this, "black" and "white" should be considered inappropriate ways to describe human beings in my opinion.
Why do you feel this way Sag? These descriptions may be entirely accurate in many cases.
Kid
Wasn't me, Kid, though I am inclined to agree. I have yet to see actual black or white skin on a human being.
This is a very keen observation! The more that I think about this, "black" and "white" should be considered inappropriate ways to describe human beings in my opinion.
Why do you feel this way Sag? These descriptions may be entirely accurate in many cases.
Kid
Hi Kid, this is my statement. These descriptions are anything but accurate in regards to "racial" categorization in human beings. There are swarthy skinned people with complexions darker than my own who are classified as white by the US government. Then, there are people who are not classified as black by the US government such as people from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, etc but are as black as any black African yet these people are classified as Caucasian. People as white as Gregory Howard Williams are classified as black. How accurate is any of this?
White and black descriptors each carry so much baggage and when I stop to think about it, I don't believe that anything good has ever come from Americans dividing themselves into these two opposing color coded camps.
In U.S. immigration court cases dealing with Caucasoid Asian Indians who wanted U.S. citizenship, even though they brought up "scientific evidence" of the time (1920s and 1930s), the judgement usually was against them.
The judge basically stated that what was meant by a "white" person, was what and how a common person on the street recognized visually/experientially to be "white".
Why are people like Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie considered "white"?
I always percieved them as not straight up white folks, but mestizo.
Is this because in the U.S. there is no middle spectrum, but rather an either or dichotomy?
In Canada there is a specifically recognized Native group called Metis, and these people incorporate both French and their particular Native customs and language. In the U.S. this does not seem to be the case.
In the U.S. the Creole culture/people seem to inhabit this inbetween state, but is it recognized by the government in the same way as the Metis culture is in Canada?
Also people like Deane Caine and Kristina Kreuk, I also never percieved as "white" people. My perception of them was always they were Hapa/Eurasian. When the show Lois and Clark: the Adventures of Superman first premiered back in the early 90s, I was so excited seeing someone I percieved as not straight up "white" playing the role of Superman. He was interviewed in an Asian-American Journal back in the 90s, and he stated that growing up in his neighborhood he was always refered to as the "Asian kid." However, as he began to become popular this perception seems to have changed. I'm thinking maybe because people didn't see him with his immediate family-the Asian parent and white parent. Once I told 2 white girls (years ago) that he was part Japanese/Asian. They seemed rather disbelieving.
If I were to put Anglena Jolie, Johnny Depp, Deane Caine and Kristina Kreuk in the middle of a continuum between phenotypic E.Asians/Eastern and MidWestern Native peoples and phenotypic Western/Northern European people, I could see more obviously the physical traits they share with each group.
Johnny Depp has these flat and wide cheekbones (besides the full lips) I associate with Natve-Americans and certain Asian groups. Deane Caine also had the same sort of cheekbones, and he didn't have that high bridged nose I associated with European phenotypes.
I can't always spot the mestizo or the Eurasian just by physically eyeballing someone. However, since I live in an area where there are alot of hapas/Eurasians, (also relatives) there tends to be a general look they have. (Most of the hapa kids at my son's preschool, my son included share that similar appearance to each other.)
So the 4 actors I mentioned are they considered by the general public/common person to be "white" people with an exotic twist?
Why are people like Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie considered "white"?
Three points might be useful.
First, as Thea already explained, part of it is "because in the U.S. there is no middle spectrum, but rather an either or dichotomy." The extreme U.S. dichotomy of the B/W ODR is unique. But even with other combinations, U.S. society tends to demand either/or. For example, U.S. federal census regulations were enforced for over two centuries (since the founding of the Republic) before it became legal to check off more than one "race" box. And even that small sanity had to overcome passionate and determined opposition in Congress by the Black caucus. Why? The answer is buried in the unique history of the colonial Chesapeake. The point is that Thea's assessment is correct; U.S. society demands either/or regarding "race."
Second, Americans are extraordinarily inarticulate when it comes to explaining how they decide which "race" someone is. They know the answer, but cannot explain how they got it. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling mentioned by Thea is a good example. See U.S. Supreme Court Rulings on Who is White in the “History of the U.S. Color Line” forum, for a summary of the many times that the U.S. Supreme Court has flatly contradicted itself on this point. The most famous juxtaposition of two cases is Ozawa v. U.S. (1922) and U. S. v. Thind (1923).
In the Ozawa case, the court ruled that although Ozawa looked utterly White, he had Japanese ancestry, and so he was not “Caucasian" in the scientific sense. The court ruled that what someone looks like to the average man in the street is irrelevant, and that the only thing that counts for Whiteness is whether a person is scientifically “Caucasian.”
In the Thind case, less than a year later, the court ruled that although Thind was 100 percent Caucasian biologically speaking, he did not “look White.” The court ruled that whether a person is scientifically “Caucasian.” is irrelevant, and that the only thing that counts for Whiteness is what someone looks like to the average man in the street.
Third, times change. It is likely that none of the people mentioned (Depp, Jolie, etc.) would have been seen as White around the turn of the 20th century. For that, matter Irish-Americans were not seen as White in 1850 and German-Americans were not seen as White in 1750. Jews have been seen as White by most Americans only since the past two generations, and most Puerto Ricans have been seen as White only since around 1970. The perceptual Whitening of people with some Native American ancestry started in the early 1800s and the perceptual Whitening of people with Japanese ancestry started in the late 1900s.
In keeping with Frank's thesis that "Asian" Americans have effectively transitioned to white and that this will become obvious in the next few years, I would like to propose that "Happas" have allready completed the transformation. It is my belief, that happas, have been accepted as whites by the vast majority of white Americans at least since the early 1990s. The explosion of happa models and actors on television that seemed to originate around 2000, is probably indicative of their acceptance as whites and their ever-increasing numbers. Lastly, when Happas are presented there is never, in any of the cases I have seen, a reference to their Asian ancestry. Because of their phenotype, for most of them it is ambiguous what they are mixed with. I believe that lack of reference to someones "non-white status" shows an acceptance of their inclusion into the white mainstream accept in the cases where the person is depicted in a way that characteristically defines them as other. For instance, a "black" person shown in a stereotypical fashion which constitutes "acting black". Therefore, the fact that Happas are not shown as "others", despite their obviously ambiguous appearance, seems to indicate acceptance as whites.
Posted: Sun 27 May 2007 16:37 Post subject: Who is White?
pianoplayer111
Quote:
-Most in America perceive "white people" to be those of discernible European/Caucasian ancestry. If you're a blue-eyed blonde, that helps. If you have straight hair, even better. If you happen to have dark hair or brown eyes you will mostly be seen as "nonwhite" despite any overwhelming European blood. I don't agree with this, but oh well...
Most whites will be very surprised to learn that only blue-eyed blonds are not "white."
Joined: 11 May 2005 {Posts: 84 } Location: New York
Posted: Thu 31 May 2007 00:12 Post subject:
Mixedmom wrote:
Patience wrote:
Thinking some more on the subject of colourizing....it's now anti-social and insulting to call a Native American person "red" and an East Asian person, "yellow" but "black" and "white" are still more than acceptable ways of categorization.
This is a very keen observation! The more that I think about this, "black" and "white" should be considered inappropriate ways to describe human beings in my opinion.
Patience's observation can be qualified a bit. Remember, “black” was also superceded by “African American”. Like “East Asian” for “yellow”, “South Asian” for “brown”, and Native American for "red", “African American” is a geographically based identity. So the same forces were at work on “black”.
I think this is the usual need to reject the stigma that inevitably befalls minority groups. The identity becomes stigmatized and so you choose a new name which for a time has no stigma.
“Black” was the stage prior to “African American”. It had rejected “Negro”. It rejected a foreign origin word. “Black” was also self-affirmation, as “African American” is.
Actually, even “white” shows the same trajectory. White was a very ubiquitous term in the pre-Civil Rights era, both in public and academic use. It was the moral victory (read “power”) of the Civil Rights movement which stigmatized “white” and humbled it. Some people have explained the reluctance by whites to assert a white identity as a natural feature of the elite mentality – refusing to define itself. The truth is that just like minority identities, white identity had its share of stigma which silenced it.
IMO, the reason “European” is not a ready identity for whites, as “African” has become for blacks, is that the premier identity for whites is “American”, which is formed in opposition to Europe. The United States was formed as the first independent New World state, and so its identity reflected that overbearing presence of the Old World which was still very real. Emphasizing “European” neutralizes the American identity of whites.
I think the Africaness of black Americans is also compromised by their Americaness. But the Americaness of blacks and whites is not homogenous. In other words, there is need (probably always will be) for designating opposition within that same Americaness. Hence the currency of “black” and “white”, which captures that difference so succinctly.
I agree with Mixedmom that the identities based in human features acquired a lot of baggage, and the change to geographically based identities is a positive. However, I doubt the geographically based identities are immune from prejudice or of becoming stigmatized. One can imagine Native Americans objecting to an identity that suggests they are followers of an Italian sailor! And “African” is actually an older Latin word whose etymology (like “black”, I think) refers to complexion. “Asian” is acceptable now, but isn’t “Oriental” just as geographically based, while it has been rejected?
I think its just the never-ending need to stay one step ahead of stigma. But be assured, stigma will come, just as the need to be free of it.
In keeping with Frank's thesis that "Asian" Americans have effectively transitioned to white and that this will become obvious in the next few years, I would like to propose that "Happas" have allready completed the transformation. It is my belief, that happas, have been accepted as whites by the vast majority of white Americans at least since the early 1990s. The explosion of happa models and actors on television that seemed to originate around 2000, is probably indicative of their acceptance as whites and their ever-increasing numbers. Lastly, when Happas are presented there is never, in any of the cases I have seen, a reference to their Asian ancestry. Because of their phenotype, for most of them it is ambiguous what they are mixed with. I believe that lack of reference to someones "non-white status" shows an acceptance of their inclusion into the white mainstream accept in the cases where the person is depicted in a way that characteristically defines them as other. For instance, a "black" person shown in a stereotypical fashion which constitutes "acting black". Therefore, the fact that Happas are not shown as "others", despite their obviously ambiguous appearance, seems to indicate acceptance as whites.
Depends on the phenotype.
I think the epicanthic fold can still cause a sense of otherness.
And then you have the Happa that was not:
Chosen to play a Chinese or Eurasian woman in the Golden Child she is actually of Irish/Chilean/Iraqi ancestry.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
