Posted: Tue 23 May 2006 16:29 Post subject: Re: Passing for White
Powell wrote:
Aren't the people you accuse of "passing" already "white"? How do YOU define "white" in all times and places?
I agree.When a person IS white, they're white. Just like when a person IS black they are black. Fair is fair..lol.
So, basically, there is no such thing as "passing". Otherwise that's like saying a black person with 1/4 white ancestry is "passing" as black . If that person said they were white, can you imagine the crazed looks they'd get ?!?!!? HAHAHAHA Now apply to them all the sayings the whites who have a teeny tiny bit of black blood say..such as" I am really white, but look black..I must identify with being white because thats what I am." HUH?!?!?! Yeah, it's ridiculous. People are nuts!
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Tue 23 May 2006 18:02 Post subject: Re: Passing for White
Powell wrote:
Aren't the people you accuse of "passing" already "white"? How do YOU define "white" in all times and places?
The thread Whiteness: Description or Identity? suggests you cannot define "white" in all times and places. Not unless we are in a system of white supremacy (racism) at this time in all places.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Mon 29 May 2006 22:21 Post subject: Re: Passing for White
Altertude wrote:
Powell wrote:
Aren't the people you accuse of "passing" already "white"? How do YOU define "white" in all times and places?
The thread Whiteness: Description or Identity? suggests you cannot define "white" in all times and places. Not unless we are in a system of white supremacy (racism) at this time in all places.
Hi,
Not even "white supremacy" works. Nazis have a very hard time finding which one was "aryan" and who is not.
People don't realize that "white" is just a phenotype. The problem with racists and races is that when try to define their group they take the risk of leaving most of the members of their group outside the definition.
Let's try to define "white" just for fun:
White is a person that:
(1) Has light skin, from rose to ligh brown.
(2) Has a face that is longer than wider
(3) Has straigh hair, although some curlies could apply.
(4) Has thin lips and a wide mouth.
(5) Has a long, narrow and prominent nose. Hopefully straight but other shapes could also apply, with reserves, of course.
(6) Has thin, long, light-colored hair, although light brown people could apply also.
(7) Has a lot of body hair. The more they have the better.
( Is tall, although pigmies are also welcome, given other conditions apply.
(9) Blue eyes and blond hair people are very welcome and the other conditions are not necesary in this case.
(10) Round eyes are required, but certain slant eyes could be tolerated if the rest apply.
(11) Has a flat "noble" forefront, although exceptions are allowed. bald people does not need to take this into account.
(12) If you got a squared chin with a hole on it, all the rest of the conditions are not necesary: you are white.
(13) Dumbo ears could be considered, but only will be decisive if the score is not enough to meet the requirements. Prince Charles was approved because of this one.
Well, Imagine applying that application test to all the people of the U.S.
Joined: 10 Mar 2006 {Posts: 235 } Location: Atlanta
Posted: Mon 05 Jun 2006 18:02 Post subject: Re: Passing for White
Powell wrote:
Aren't the people you accuse of "passing" already "white"? How do YOU define "white" in all times and places?
You don't. It isn't possible.
People tend to think in stereotypes. I was teaching a class at a community college once, on the theme of race and ethnicity, and asked students to define 'Asian'. One student, a black American, defined 'Asian' as, in brief, east Asian. So, I asked the Asian students in the class (an Afghan and an Indian) to hold up their hands.
Posted: Wed 28 Jun 2006 04:20 Post subject: Passing for white, more like being who you are.
Fledgist, Afghanistan is in central, not east asia!
Heres an easy way to describe asians as a race, people with slanted eyes and flat faces, who are from east Asia. Thats internally consistent and describes a number of phenotypes whos biggest feature is their peculiar eyes. Notice this is not nerely as specific as a stereotype. The idea of using race as a biological category is just not tenable, but who the hell wants to do that anyway?
As far as Powell is concerned, shes absolutely correct. I would define them as white creoles. White in the sense they fit into the white "race" as they have overwhelmingly European ancestry and whitish skin, with round eyes and non-nappy hair. Notice again that theres lots of phenotypes that fit into this category, but none of them have to match a stereotypic anglo-saxon. Creole in the sense of the word that they are mixed ancestry persons, and even though it may not be enough to chance their racial reference group, their ancestry at say the 20 % admixture level still may be clearly enough to feel a connection with. Therefore, white creole. Problem solved.
Joined: 10 Mar 2006 {Posts: 235 } Location: Atlanta
Posted: Sun 02 Jul 2006 01:37 Post subject: Re: Passing for white, more like being who you are.
TheMulattoKid wrote:
Fledgist, Afghanistan is in central, not east asia!
Heres an easy way to describe asians as a race, people with slanted eyes and flat faces, who are from east Asia. Thats internally consistent and describes a number of phenotypes whos biggest feature is their peculiar eyes. Notice this is not nerely as specific as a stereotype. The idea of using race as a biological category is just not tenable, but who the hell wants to do that anyway?
As far as Powell is concerned, shes absolutely correct. I would define them as white creoles. White in the sense they fit into the white "race" as they have overwhelmingly European ancestry and whitish skin, with round eyes and non-nappy hair. Notice again that theres lots of phenotypes that fit into this category, but none of them have to match a stereotypic anglo-saxon. Creole in the sense of the word that they are mixed ancestry persons, and even though it may not be enough to chance their racial reference group, their ancestry at say the 20 % admixture level still may be clearly enough to feel a connection with. Therefore, white creole. Problem solved.
Zack
Er, that;'s the point. That it's in Asia and its people are Asian, but not visibly 'Asian' in the sense that the word is used by most Americans.
Posted: Sun 02 Jul 2006 17:52 Post subject: Re: Passing for white, more like being who you are.
TheMulattoKid wrote:
Fledgist, Afghanistan is in central, not east asia!
Heres an easy way to describe asians as a race, people with slanted eyes and flat faces, who are from east Asia. Thats internally consistent and describes a number of phenotypes whos biggest feature is their peculiar eyes. Notice this is not nerely as specific as a stereotype. The idea of using race as a biological category is just not tenable, but who the hell wants to do that anyway?
As far as Powell is concerned, shes absolutely correct. I would define them as white creoles. White in the sense they fit into the white "race" as they have overwhelmingly European ancestry and whitish skin, with round eyes and non-nappy hair. Notice again that theres lots of phenotypes that fit into this category, but none of them have to match a stereotypic anglo-saxon. Creole in the sense of the word that they are mixed ancestry persons, and even though it may not be enough to chance their racial reference group, their ancestry at say the 20 % admixture level still may be clearly enough to feel a connection with. Therefore, white creole. Problem solved.
Zack
What is a stereotypical Anglo-Saxon? This term in itself refers to the blending of two cultures. I wouldn't look to the British Isles to help nail this definition of whiteness down. Those islands have been overrun with various people. Between the Celts, Gauls, Romans, Angles, Normans, Saxons, and Vikings you're going to run the phenotypical gamut from Al Pacino to Paul Bettany (and it's not even reasonable to plot them as opposites on some kind of whiteness continuum).
Also your definition of the "Asian" race just doesn't hold up as objective reality. As G-Man says, in England Asians are Indians and Pakistanis as well as Japanese or Koreans. Asian is a blanket term for "east of what we consider the West." In Mongolia and Russia there are plenty of blond haired and blue eyed people with slanted eyes and flat faces.
Posted: Sun 02 Jul 2006 19:33 Post subject: Re: Asian? East Asian? Oriental?
TheMulattoKid wrote:
No, Asian is short for east asian, where people DO have that phenotype.
Zack
My wife favors Oriental for a racially descriptive term for East Asians, in the sense that TheMulattoKid means, I think maybe.
It seems, word came down from On High [?] a few years ago that "Oriental" is a despicable remnant of Western colonialism, maybe even a racist slur. The P.C. "race-card" became Asian. But my Chinese-born wife finds Asian problematic for its lumping-together a world-geography too vast. Asia can mean every nation between Turkey and Hawaii. Asia clearly includes Pakistan, India, all the former Soviet Union east of the Ural Mts., Tibet, Burma, and on down into Sumatra in the Indian Ocean. Approximately 90-degrees east longitude -- down Middle Asia --from there on eastward, the peoples gradually begin showing the characteristic East Asian, or Oriental resemblance that TheMulattoKid tried to describe (a bit brutally I think: "slanted eyes," "flat faces").
It dawned on me that the U.S. Census classifying individuals Asian "race" makes an incentive for civil rights NGO organizers to try and make American-born, of college-age, abandon thinking of themselves as Oriental or Chinese or any subdivision of the politically mobilizable Asian-"race" classification. This is because subsequently to Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960), census "races" (that is, all "races" which are not "white") have been permitted, even federally pushed, to politically organize themselves in "majority-minority" voting districts. Census "races"-data are presented for mapping such "race color"-conscious districts, and computer programs make drawing up the maps a cinch. The progeny of these "color"-conscious political districts are such as the Congressional Black Caucus. Asian-"race" identity political aspirants seek to tap into this wellspring of racial empowerment, pioneered by African-Americans. Uniting all diverse Asian nations in one U.S. "yellow race" grows their census numbers.
George
Posted: Fri 07 Jul 2006 21:31 Post subject: Asian features
Hahha yea thats true E, but ya know darn well that this is exactly how they define their own race. Just look at any Asian person and ask them who is and who isnt, and you will see them judging according to these steroetypes, for sure in the US, and to a strong degree in Asia itself.
It is interesting though, to remember as Frank is allways saying, that the particular "racial" traits that we see as important are really arbitrary and circumstancial.
Posted: Fri 07 Jul 2006 21:35 Post subject: East Asians my **$$$
ACTUALLY they are from SOUTH East Asia, and you know that damn well.
The people who are from east Asia and typically do not look "Asiany" are the Ainu from Japan, the hill people from Taiwan, and the hill peoples from Korea. But who cares, they are such a small percentage of the population, its not important if they dont fit the stereotype.
[personal remarks edited out by the website administration]
Posted: Fri 07 Jul 2006 22:02 Post subject: Re: Asian features
TheMulattoKid wrote:
Hahha yea thats true E, but ya know darn well that this is exactly how they define their own race.
Have you asked people from Asia how they define themselves racially? Do you think they see themselves as one monolithic group? Please state your sources.
Quote:
Just look at any Asian person and ask them who is and who isnt, and you will see them judging according to these steroetypes, for sure in the US, and to a strong degree in Asia itself.
The US? Feel free to ask any person from India if they are Asian.
Asia follows your bias? state your sources.
Quote:
It is interesting though, to remember as Frank is allways saying, that the particular "racial" traits that we see as important are really arbitrary and circumstancial.
So why make stereotypical assumptions?
Quote:
The people who are from east Asia and typically do not look "Asiany" are the Ainu from Japan, the hill people from Taiwan, and the hill peoples from Korea. But who cares, they are such a small percentage of the population, its not important if they dont fit the stereotype.
I guess this same logic could be used for the minority of Blacks that are mixed and do not fit the stereotype. They are just Black because some people have some stereotype in their mind of what Black is. The same as you have a stereotype in your mond of what Asian is.
for your information, if you ask a Brit what an Asian is, they will think of people from India.
Posted: Sat 08 Jul 2006 02:54 Post subject: Asian huh?
George, you make great points. I must agree that the concept of a racialized ethnicity is all about political and social power. You know, Black ethnicity started up in 1790, and was not complete untill around 1890, judging by some of Franks essays on the colorline. Asians have only been here in force for a hundred years, i dont find it surprising at all that they are now crystallizing a pan-asian racial / ethnic identity. All such identities have bullshit myths, why shouldnt Asians have the same? I mean, you cant tell them its wrong anymore you can tell the Latins that theirs is wrong. But still, you are correct that such identities are counter-factual.
Sal, thanks for the info but youre about 3 years too late. I know very well what Britts think of as Asian, but lets see, hmmmm, were talking about 60 million brits versus 850 million Americans (continentally speaking). Obviously, brits dont really matter when it comes down to the numbers. Anyway, no i did not ask Asian kids what they consider Asian, I read what some of them have to say about Asian identity on Asian websites and Hapa websites, and I think they know better than either you or I do. I have observed Asian identity thinking and behavior personally, and I told you allready, EAST ASIAN, so Indians dont ***()# count. Those are my sources, all of them secondary or primary, now where are yours?
As for stereotypes, Sal, what is it that you are getting at? That races dont exist? That these are not good names for such races? If so, those are rediculous and immaterial points. Obviously I could pull a name out of my ass to describe any group of people that I want. Asian is what Asians have embraced for themselves. If they would like to change their opinions, then I have no problem with it. As I understand it, this is the way they see it, even in Brittain I expect they see it this way, although they may feel differently. So what is it that you are trying to get at?
I sure hate it when people trip on stereotyping, speaking candidly, categorizing, and making generalizations.
For your info, Sal, you make a stereotypic judgement every time you look at a human face. You subconsciously compare it to template "racial" faces you have stored in memory. YOu do this subcosciously, because everyone does it. I read this several places on the internet a while back on psychology websites, and have also read it in my psych text books for school. Do you have a problem with this behavior? If not, then dontcha think its just a lil bit hypocritical to get on someone for stereotyping when its something you do yourself?
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
. If that person said they were white, can you imagine the crazed looks they'd get 
?!?!!? HAHAHAHA Now apply to them all the sayings the whites who have a teeny tiny bit of black blood say..such as" I am really white, but look black..I must identify with being white because thats what I am." HUH?!?!?! Yeah, it's ridiculous. People are nuts!
Is tall, although pigmies are also welcome, given other conditions apply.
