[wmirkru]

One thing that's really puzzled and annoyed me in such forums. What is this obsession with being labelled "white" or being labelled "European"? And we all know how subjective those terms are to start with

Why are people intent on having their ethnic groups labelled into such subjective constructs? Whatever happened to just focusing to your ethnic group's label and the unique characteristics and elements that come with it? I just see this obsession of being labelled white as so one-dimensional and petty. For example, cramming Irish, Welch people with Greek, Bulgarian people under one label is just moronic in my view. For the record, I'm not one of the people on the other hand that ignores that there are different races and different people, I just view this obsession of being labelled under such terms a bit childish at times. I think we have to be more "localised" in viewing ethnic groups rather than trying to look at it at such a large scale thus blurring the many differences that exist...

[wrbwrbwrb]

Whites and Europeans made much of the technological advances of modern times. Whites nearly conquered the entire globe and put themselves on the moon. That's really quite impressive, if you ask me.

I'm not at all surprised that so many borderline Euros are so desperate to be accepted into this unique branch of humanity.

[djmassk]

I consider my self to be white because it is the term my people used to label themselves. At least that is what people are always saying on here. That it is an American term for the early North and Central Euros that came here. Why other people want to be included I have no idea.

Eh, that kind of makes it sound like I only consider white Americans to be white and that is not the case.

[tsamprasxx]

Whites and Europeans conquered much of the technological advances of modern times. Whites nearly conquered the entire globe and put themselves on the moon. That's really quite impressive, if you ask me.

Well yes European civilisations have had a lot of impact on the technological/intellectual advances though with each people having their own contribution (democracy with Greeks, renaissance with Italians, etc). Though we shouldn't ignore the contributions by the Chinese and the Islamic world also. Islamic world had a golden age during the dark ages of Europe.

[KeettyGlots]

I guess it's a form of internalized "colonization", as in, the psyche of all these people obsessed with being white was colonized in the sense that they accepted the idea that they are inferior, uncivilized, backwards, in need for the white man's help, etc. This mentality was constantly reinforced through colonization for a long time so I suppose it had a deep impact that still manifests its effects to this day..

I agree with you that the definition of white is very blurry but in my humble opinion, I associate the term white with anyone who is of predominantly European descent, so anyone who is otherwise is not white, even if they "look" white...Those obsessed with being white are probably victims of their own mentalities more than anything..

[feannigvogten]

Whites and Europeans made much of the technological advances of modern times. Whites nearly conquered the entire globe and put themselves on the moon. That's really quite impressive, if you ask me.

I'm not at all surprised that so many borderline Euros are so desperate to be accepted into this unique branch of humanity.

Yeah but the foundations by which Europe was able to stand philosophically, and technologically were initially created outside of Europe and then funneled into it.

Examples:

1) much of the foundations for civil engineering were first laid down in Egypt, Assyria, Summeria etc. This of course leads to the concepts of roads, cities with monumental buildings and architecture, and large scale flood protection projects/irrigation all of which were occurring among early Near East city states first and hardly at all at during Bronze age Europe.

Closest to early large scale urbanization is the Tripolye-Cucuteni culture of present day Romanian c. 4000 BC which was laid waste to likely by some of its Pontic-Caspian neighbors.

2) The horse. Represents the first concept in rapid speed mobile land transportation. Helps accelerate military concepts and mostly begins our quest and evolution for speedy transportation means. We still measure a car's velocity level today in terms of "horse speed". Any idea where the earliest evidence for horse domestication occurs that is now more or less accepted by the archaeological-scientific community? The answer:

Present day Kazakhstan c. 3700 BC

The culture: Botai-Teresk. Google it.

Eneolithc-Chalcolithic Ukraine is still a contender but according to another thread on this site, its really not apart of Europe, so it wouldn't count anyway.

3) The wheel. Its actually not certain where the wheel was even developed, to be fair. There's actually early evidence of the wheel among the Tripolye-Cucuteni culture, Funnel Beaker cultures Yamnaya culture all of which are from c. 4000-2800 BC.

HOWEVER, the most explicit and complete evidence of earliest wheel use in the context of a vehicle w/ beasts of burdens in use, that was manned, still last I checked, comes from a Summerian context.

The spoked wheel is likely a whole 'nother story.

4) Religion. Yeah there were "indigenous" religions in Europe but did most of them really last or influence European civilization as much as the "intruder religions" from the Near East? I'd lean towards no and they certainly helped to shape European philosophical thought, political life, and influenced greatly arts and architecture.

I'd never say the Abrahamic religions are perfect in any sense and were corrupted by its most influential members but, face it, they still remain and so do the churches and mosques.

Here's really how Europe won: through England.

Yes the English rose to much power by the 1500's and onward exporting their bad teeth, bad food, snobby, xenophobic ways abroad. And geography in no small part helped the English win as its always way more hard to invade your far flung island dwelling neighbors then your mountainless, plain dwelling neighbors (see history of Poland for that one...geography be her very nemesis). The geography of England/Britain allowed the English monarchy to sit back a little, build up impressive navies, and pick the most opportune times to invade other nations.

Eventually, they colonize the world.

Face it, last time England was invaded and shaped traumatically by invasion was by the Vikings (Normans to be precise). After Vikings got all that out of their system, England was more or less free to develop strongly with only the occasionally French conflict here or there.

Meanwhile, rest of Europe is being laid waste to by various steppe invaders, Ottoman Turks etc.

And during the World Wars it was always the English/British who pretty much lead the "western charge" to regain order and stabilize things again.

So Europe's luckily streak is more or less attributable to an island nation: England, a country that through most of history isn't the most "sophisticated" in terms of technical innovation, who's culture really isn't considered the highest, and has the worst food, yet its pretty much given a free pass to develop as it pleases due to its geography and then rule the world.

So really, as I see it, Europe just got lucky.

Then again how can you really be a part of Europe when you're really the black sheep of Europe, separated physically by the region and have a culture that is far from "continental"?

Then again I'm writing in English.

Oh well, best regards.

[NETvoyne]

All those 'white', 'European' etc normally are just biological/geopgraphcial marker but many people if not most cannot live wthout a larger group of people who are the same as them, who look, think, eat, pray and die as same as them, and those people need tags and categories, to belong somewhere.
This need of belonging is quita natural, but takes various forms. One can identify more with someone from another country who makes similar choices and thinks in similar way, some identify with anyone cause they look similar, its hard to draw a clear separating line.

I am myself loyal to my country, like to my family etc- I consider it a duty- and thats it, I dont indulge myself with a less or more pronounced ideas of dividing the world into 'my camp' and 'not my camp'.

[annouhMus]

It's not an obsession for most people, its not even an issue for most people (since 80-odd percent of the world's population will not be white by any sensible definition of the word).

I consider Europeans of any sort to be White (and, of course, Americans of European descent), so I suppose it is based on a feeling of shared culture or history, or whatever. We all know how fluid a concept it is, after all the Irish and even most Germans () were not considered White at points in history (Benjamin Franklin said only the English and Saxon Germans were white). And, of course, it took longer for eastern Europeans and southern Europeans to be accepted as 'White' in America (and White doesn't mean much in most other places, excluding RSA and Australasia of course).

I see little point in dividing things up much further than that, even if we include every indigenous European and every American I doubt whether we make up much more than 15% of the world population; we could, of course, cut that down to 1 or 2% by excluding all the NQWs (Not Quite Whites), such as those darky dagos, taigs, polacks, suspect taffies, scotch bastards, spaniards, russians, serbs and whatever else, and if we did that we would be able to feel really special about our NW European selves. Then we could start eliminating all those brown eyed bastards masquerading as Whites, then anyone without blond hair, then anyone with fillings in their teeth (I'd be well dead by this point I might add).

[Boripiomi]

Whiteness: The definition of white changes where ever one goes. For example, the ancient greco-romans would never have identified themselves as "white." (They identified as the ideal intermediate people with the greeks going as far has calling themselves "honey colored") Even today, many greeks and southern italians liken themselves as "Mediterranean," not white. To be called "white" for the greater part of history was never positive for anyone from a greco-roman, arab, sub saharan, chinese, etc." (the greco-romans and Arabs believed in the intermediate superiority, the sub saharans did not like to be "albinos," and the chinese found any non-yellow skin tone repulsive though the chinese never identified their own skin tone as any color necessarily)

Generally, the reason with the world's obsession with whiteness is simply "Germanic" dominance of the world from the last 200 years. Since the 1500's, western civ. had drastically changed. Original, during this period, the most influential of the western countries were the Iberians and italians. Although they generally had Mediterranean complexions, whiteness began to develop from they being pissed by the darker arabs and turks. Whiteness for example to italians was "to be civilized," not necessarily phenotypical. The iberians manage to spread such ideology to underdeveloped parts of the world, but not the advanced parts like the ottomans, mughals, and the Ming Chinese. By the 1700's, however, north-western european countries like Britain and France experienced huge intellectual and scientific reforms like none in the world before. They easily overshadowed the rest of the advanced world, including italy and iberia. Only Qing China still rivaled... Yet the industrial revolution came and domination was guaranteed. In the 1800's and 1900's, germanic people like the Americans, British, French, and Germans dominated the globe (save the russians and japanese.) Through Britain and America's near monopoly of the world in nearly every matter of civilization, nordicism and the white man's burden created a strict racial hierarchy. The systematic bias from this Westocentric dominance created beliefs like "Whites are the most inventive, beautiful, dominant, famous, intelligent, scientific, etc." worldwide. Simply to be white was to be superior for the last 200 years and still goes on today. Only few countries challenged this assumed hierarchy like sinocentric China, in which the racialist since the late 1800's placed "yellows" as the highest race when they encountered social darwinistic theories.

If this whiteness obsession is to be eliminated, then westo-centric bias of assumed white supremacy must be eliminated. (The world must me taught that intermediate complected people dominated civilization, science, inventiveness, and famous figures for 4800 of humanity's 5000 year history, the addition of hindus and arabs who had directed contributed to western science like Alhacen, beauty is dependent on beauty standard, etc.) Nevertheless, with China regaining its historical norm these days, i worry sinocentrism will be just as bad as westocentrism, creating bias around the world of yellow supremacy. Heck, in 20 years, someone may make a topic on this site about "the obsession with yellowness."

[provigil]

As Alamchop said, it's the Germanic/WASP dominance of the world during the last centuries. White is an Anglo-Saxon term, has been portrayed as some kind of privilege, widely spread today because of them.

I also cannot understand why white = just European. A European country like Greece has so many people from Asia (Anatolian Greeks) plus Cypriot Greeks who don't belong to Europe geographically. Since European=white, should we split Greeks into whites and ???. It doesn't make sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eu...s_boundary.svg

The way ancient Greeks categorized people was much more logical.

[nuncEtedben]

I don't like it either. I think I'm the only one on here who takes special pride in being non-European. I remember some people got really fucking PISSED when I made that "Mongoloid admixture in Slavs" thread, even though it was an honest question and I meant no harm whatsoever when I made it.

[Lorionasodi]

If this whiteness obsession is to be eliminated, then westo-centric bias of assumed white supremacy must be eliminated. (The world must me taught that intermediate complected people dominated civilization, science, inventiveness, and famous figures for 4800 of humanity's 5000 year history, the addition of hindus and arabs who had directed contributed to western science like Alhacen, beauty is dependent on beauty standard, etc.)

It really doesn´t matter who dominated what in the past. Those days are gone and the majority of people today do not care and are not aware of such trivialities. As a lover of history I personally do find these things highly interesting, but I do not understand wallowing in the past. It´s meaningless in the realpolitik of 2012.

Nevertheless, with China regaining its historical norm these days, i worry sinocentrism will be just as bad as westocentrism, creating bias around the world of yellow supremacy. Heck, in 20 years, someone may make a topic on this site about "the obsession with yellowness."

No need to worry. I really don´t see this happening anytime soon. In the Asian sphere of influence sure, but not worldwide. China hype is so 2008.

[Edwardthe_third]

The fact is that most of Europeans cluster closer to eachother on genetic plots than some European people/group cluster with non-Europeans,and they live at the same continent so i see no reason why it is funny to lump a group as European.I think we have many kind of obsessions here not just those who want to be labelled "white".

[epPtsDno]

Maybe it just has something to do with the Uniqueness of the "white" peoples of Western Eurasia?

If you sit around and think about it. white people are a very Unique people at least physically. They can have red or blonde hair, and most people in the world can't. They have robust builds, but they don't have an "archaic" look like maybe Australiods do.

But most importantly it seems like it's really easy for foreign bloodlines to dilute the Uniqueness of the "white" physique. I think the obsession over whiteness is more of a preventive measure or means to protect their culture and phenotypes. Nothing wrong with it really.

It's something that ALL races should practice. Look no further than the ASI-admix zone of South and South east Asia to see what happens when people don't care about their race and culture and just mix-it-up like Animals. All empires are collapsed, Technologically was forgotten, History was forgotten, writing systems abandoned.

[Gometesstem]

Red and blonde hair isn't unique to the "White" race.Some Melanesians may have those traits as well,some Hmong,some MENA's,etc..

[broksaksaak]

Red and blonde hair isn't unique to the "White" race.Some Melanesians may have those traits as well,some Hmong,some MENA's,etc..

No other group has those traits in the high frequencies of the Europeans. You know it and I know it.

[jagxj12]

No other group has those traits in the high frequencies of the Europeans. You know it and I know it.

Go check out the photos of those Melanesian groups that Truck posted.Some of them DO have blondness in high frequencies.Or even use google.And many Europeans don't even have very high frequencies of blondness.

[AnetTeilor]

And many Europeans don't even have very high frequencies of blondness.

I think that's a testament to how easily their features can be erased, but I don't want to start a flame war here.

[Oxzzlvpg]

I don't like it either. I think I'm the only one on here who takes special pride in being non-European. I remember some people got really fucking PISSED when I made that "Mongoloid admixture in Slavs" thread, even though it was an honest question and I meant no harm whatsoever when I made it.

What you meant is one story, what could be the interpretation is another story, you need to differiate between bare facts and their interpretation and not only by you but also others.

Its called 'offending by an association' and the object you associate someone with doesnt have to be any bad, its just that the association exists and some people use or used it for wrong (or selfish) reasons.


Translating into this case- Nazi used 'Mongol connection' to persecute people. The problem with this is that there was no Mongol connection (or no such as they presented) and that even if it had been there, it still wouldnt have been a reason to kill people or persecute them-so its wrong on two levels- a crime based on two lies.

Its like imagine I said 'SmartCelt should be killed cause he is a gay'- one thing is, I lied about gayness, two- I used it ax an excuse to kill you, but I have no right to kill you even if you are a gay. And now imagine all the forum is repeating 'Smart Celt is a gay we need to kill him' and one day some new member comes and starts a thread 'what do you think, is SmartCelt a gay, he looks and behaves like, I think he must be a gay'.
Its very similar.

[Xlkl9SFd]

I don't like it either. I think I'm the only one on here who takes special pride in being non-European. I remember some people got really fucking PISSED when I made that "Mongoloid admixture in Slavs" thread, even though it was an honest question and I meant no harm whatsoever when I made it.

The fact is that you are a dumbass troll.