Full Version: Are Jews white?
Okay, this has been bugging me. I had an argument with someone about this. I think Jews are white, he says they're not. So...uh...What do you think? Now, I'm talking about people from a Semitic background, not Jewish by religion only (for example: not talking about Madonna or Sammy Davis Jr). So, someone settle this argument.
ofcourse they are white. what else would they be???? that other person must be a freakin' idiot.
Nah I have seen both white and brown ( middle eastern looking ones) 
sometimes its hard differiante between them > I always thought they were a mix race
All I hear about Jews are they are good accountants, dont like spending money, drinking or having sex, and yea like playing the little toy called the cradle
sometimes its hard differiante between them > I always thought they were a mix raceAll I hear about Jews are they are good accountants, dont like spending money, drinking or having sex, and yea like playing the little toy called the cradle
QUOTE (VietSk8rGUI @ Oct 23 2005, 03:05 AM)
ofcourse they are white. what else would they be???? that other person must be a freakin' idiot.
His basic argument is that since Nazis hate them, they can't be white.
I never said they were Aryan, I just said they're white.
I put no for some reason, and no one is agreeing with me so -1 point for team Lee
they're asian
QUOTE (VietSk8rGUI @ Oct 23 2005, 01:05 AM)
ofcourse they are white. what else would they be???? that other person must be a freakin' idiot.
If you're talking about the orginal Jew that never left Palestine/Israel, then they are not white. They are pretty much the same people as the Arabs. However, they belong to the Caucasoid race though.
it depends on your definition of white. if white means caucasoid, then semites are a caucasoid race, as are indians and iranians. but if you mean europid (nordic, alpine, or meditteranean races), then no.
QUOTE (Nadja @ Oct 23 2005, 03:15 AM)
QUOTE (VietSk8rGUI @ Oct 23 2005, 03:05 AM)
ofcourse they are white. what else would they be???? that other person must be a freakin' idiot.
His basic argument is that since Nazis hate them, they can't be white.
I never said they were Aryan, I just said they're white.wow thats lame. soooo doesnt nazis hate england too.
what is an Aryan?
Wait...so Indians are caucasoids, too?
@VietSk8rGUI: Well, according to Encarta, the exact definition is...
Aryan: Nazi ideal, in Nazi ideology, a white person of non-Semitic descent regarded as racially superior.
@VietSk8rGUI: Well, according to Encarta, the exact definition is...
Aryan: Nazi ideal, in Nazi ideology, a white person of non-Semitic descent regarded as racially superior.
Jewish by religion can be anyone
Jewish as in regards to the Semitic people are not white. Mostly everyone you see claiming Judaism is just a person of European descent and Judaism as their religion. Now unless they are mixed like how there are a lot of Arabs, then they would be partially white. If not, then no. Have a look at some of the indigenous people of that area, they aint white.
Jewish as in regards to the Semitic people are not white. Mostly everyone you see claiming Judaism is just a person of European descent and Judaism as their religion. Now unless they are mixed like how there are a lot of Arabs, then they would be partially white. If not, then no. Have a look at some of the indigenous people of that area, they aint white.
The Jews have the same Semitic descent as the Arabs and most of the original Jews were beige like the Arabs. Most of the ones with mixed Jewish-European descent have white skin, like the ones most of us know. So there is no proper answer to this question.
As for "Caucasoid", it's simply a anthrapological classification of physical features (not based on colour)... it doesn't have anything to do with being white/European. The American usage for the word "Caucasian" is scientifically FALSE, since Caucasians are not only white. Originally white Americans thought that only whites have the Caucasian physical structure, so that was the official classification given for white people. It was later discovered that most Arabs, Jews, South Asians, Turks, Kurds, etc, also have Caucasian physical features... but the Americans still used the word Caucasian solely to refer to white people to this day (much like how they use still "miles" to measure distance instead of the standardised "kilometres" the rest of the world uses). 60% of the world's population are Caucasoids and only about 10% of that are white Caucasoids, while the rest of them are yellow/biege/brown/red/black.
As for "Caucasoid", it's simply a anthrapological classification of physical features (not based on colour)... it doesn't have anything to do with being white/European. The American usage for the word "Caucasian" is scientifically FALSE, since Caucasians are not only white. Originally white Americans thought that only whites have the Caucasian physical structure, so that was the official classification given for white people. It was later discovered that most Arabs, Jews, South Asians, Turks, Kurds, etc, also have Caucasian physical features... but the Americans still used the word Caucasian solely to refer to white people to this day (much like how they use still "miles" to measure distance instead of the standardised "kilometres" the rest of the world uses). 60% of the world's population are Caucasoids and only about 10% of that are white Caucasoids, while the rest of them are yellow/biege/brown/red/black.
QUOTE
@VietSk8rGUI: Well, according to Encarta, the exact definition is...
Aryan: Nazi ideal, in Nazi ideology, a white person of non-Semitic descent regarded as racially superior.
Well actually, Aryans are real but nothing like what the Nazis described them to be. The real Aryans were in fact Indo-Iranians, the ancestors of Iranians and most South Asians (Northern Indians are officially classified as Indo-Aryans). But that's got nothing to do with the Jews or the Europeans. Hitler was just trying to hijack Indian & Iranian culture for their own Nazi propaganda.
Aryan: Nazi ideal, in Nazi ideology, a white person of non-Semitic descent regarded as racially superior.
^I remember watching a documentary called "Nazi Occult" that showed how the Nazis had been going to, if I remember right, Tibet in an attempt to find the mythical Aryan race that they believed they descended from.
QUOTE
60% of the world's population are Caucasoids and only about 10% of that are white Caucasoids, while the rest of them are yellow/biege/brown/red/black.
Wow I thought all the Mongoloids, Australoids, and Congoids would surely be more than just a mere 40%.
Mongoloids make up about 30% of the world's population (China alone makes up almost 2/3 of the Mongoloid population), while Negroids make up about 10% (similar to the white population). Australoids are probably less than 1% of the world's population now, unless you include most of the South Asians and South-East Asians that have traces of Australoid ancestry.
These days though, there are still many Neo-Nazi whites around now that still believe they're pure descendants of the Aryans... and yet most of them don't even know where the word "Aryan" came from. The ones that do know about the real Aryans, believe that Iranians and South Asians are corrupt and impure Aryan hybrids (well they are in a way).
QUOTE
^I remember watching a documentary called "Nazi Occult" that showed how the Nazis had been going to, if I remember right, Tibet in an attempt to find the mythical Aryan race that they believed they descended from.
Hitler used to have a bizarre fascination for Indian and Tibetan culture (even though he's a racist). Since most historians believed the original Aryans used to inhabit Central Asia, and since Tibet is mostly in Central Asia and culturally related to India, the Nazis probably saw it as the most likely candidate for where the Aryans lived (they believed the Aryans came from Europe and invaded Central Asia, along with the Iranian Plateau & South Asia).These days though, there are still many Neo-Nazi whites around now that still believe they're pure descendants of the Aryans... and yet most of them don't even know where the word "Aryan" came from. The ones that do know about the real Aryans, believe that Iranians and South Asians are corrupt and impure Aryan hybrids (well they are in a way).
QUOTE (Jagger @ Oct 23 2005, 06:46 AM)
The Jews have the same Semitic descent as the Arabs and most of the original Jews were beige like the Arabs. Most of the ones with mixed Jewish-European descent have white skin, like the ones most of us know. So there is no proper answer to this question.
As for "Caucasoid", it's simply a anthrapological classification of physical features (not based on colour)... it doesn't have anything to do with being white/European. The American usage for the word "Caucasian" is scientifically FALSE, since Caucasians are not only white. Originally white Americans thought that only whites have the Caucasian physical structure, so that was the official classification given for white people. It was later discovered that most Arabs, Jews, South Asians, Turks, Kurds, etc, also have Caucasian physical features... but the Americans still used the word Caucasian solely to refer to white people to this day (much like how they use still "miles" to measure distance instead of the standardised "kilometres" the rest of the world uses). 60% of the world's population are Caucasoids and only about 10% of that are white Caucasoids, while the rest of them are yellow/biege/brown/red/black.
As for "Caucasoid", it's simply a anthrapological classification of physical features (not based on colour)... it doesn't have anything to do with being white/European. The American usage for the word "Caucasian" is scientifically FALSE, since Caucasians are not only white. Originally white Americans thought that only whites have the Caucasian physical structure, so that was the official classification given for white people. It was later discovered that most Arabs, Jews, South Asians, Turks, Kurds, etc, also have Caucasian physical features... but the Americans still used the word Caucasian solely to refer to white people to this day (much like how they use still "miles" to measure distance instead of the standardised "kilometres" the rest of the world uses). 60% of the world's population are Caucasoids and only about 10% of that are white Caucasoids, while the rest of them are yellow/biege/brown/red/black.
QUOTE
@VietSk8rGUI: Well, according to Encarta, the exact definition is...
Aryan: Nazi ideal, in Nazi ideology, a white person of non-Semitic descent regarded as racially superior.
Well actually, Aryans are real but nothing like what the Nazis described them to be. The real Aryans were in fact Indo-Iranians, the ancestors of Iranians and most South Asians (Northern Indians are officially classified as Indo-Aryans). But that's got nothing to do with the Jews or the Europeans. Hitler was just trying to hijack Indian & Iranian culture for their own Nazi propaganda.Aryan: Nazi ideal, in Nazi ideology, a white person of non-Semitic descent regarded as racially superior.
How do you define "Caucasoid"?
QUOTE (TheTruth @ Oct 23 2005, 04:27 PM)
QUOTE (Jagger @ Oct 23 2005, 06:46 AM)
The Jews have the same Semitic descent as the Arabs and most of the original Jews were beige like the Arabs. Most of the ones with mixed Jewish-European descent have white skin, like the ones most of us know. So there is no proper answer to this question.
As for "Caucasoid", it's simply a anthrapological classification of physical features (not based on colour)... it doesn't have anything to do with being white/European. The American usage for the word "Caucasian" is scientifically FALSE, since Caucasians are not only white. Originally white Americans thought that only whites have the Caucasian physical structure, so that was the official classification given for white people. It was later discovered that most Arabs, Jews, South Asians, Turks, Kurds, etc, also have Caucasian physical features... but the Americans still used the word Caucasian solely to refer to white people to this day (much like how they use still "miles" to measure distance instead of the standardised "kilometres" the rest of the world uses). 60% of the world's population are Caucasoids and only about 10% of that are white Caucasoids, while the rest of them are yellow/biege/brown/red/black.
As for "Caucasoid", it's simply a anthrapological classification of physical features (not based on colour)... it doesn't have anything to do with being white/European. The American usage for the word "Caucasian" is scientifically FALSE, since Caucasians are not only white. Originally white Americans thought that only whites have the Caucasian physical structure, so that was the official classification given for white people. It was later discovered that most Arabs, Jews, South Asians, Turks, Kurds, etc, also have Caucasian physical features... but the Americans still used the word Caucasian solely to refer to white people to this day (much like how they use still "miles" to measure distance instead of the standardised "kilometres" the rest of the world uses). 60% of the world's population are Caucasoids and only about 10% of that are white Caucasoids, while the rest of them are yellow/biege/brown/red/black.
QUOTE
@VietSk8rGUI: Well, according to Encarta, the exact definition is...
Aryan: Nazi ideal, in Nazi ideology, a white person of non-Semitic descent regarded as racially superior.
Well actually, Aryans are real but nothing like what the Nazis described them to be. The real Aryans were in fact Indo-Iranians, the ancestors of Iranians and most South Asians (Northern Indians are officially classified as Indo-Aryans). But that's got nothing to do with the Jews or the Europeans. Hitler was just trying to hijack Indian & Iranian culture for their own Nazi propaganda.Aryan: Nazi ideal, in Nazi ideology, a white person of non-Semitic descent regarded as racially superior.
How do you define "Caucasoid"?
Im thinking the same thing too. I personally go buy genotype rather than phenotype.
BTW Jagger, since you know a lot, I am Polynesian and I would like to know your opinion on them. A hybrid between Australoid and Mongoloid? Since the Y Chromosome (from father to son) is similar to Melanesians/Papuan (however not gene specific haplotypes) and the mtDNA (from mother to offspring) favours south east asia? And if you havent seen what the real thing looks like (not many know what real Polys are), just look at me sig
Id like to know your opinion on them since you know a lot. BTW, is this your major in College or something?
"Are Jews white?"
Depends on which Jew you're talking about!
Depends on which Jew you're talking about!
QUOTE (jiggyiggy @ Oct 23 2005, 05:32 PM)
"Are Jews white?"
Depends on which Jew you're talking about!
Depends on which Jew you're talking about!
lol hehe. He did say which ones though:
".What do you think? Now, I'm talking about people from a Semitic background, not Jewish by religion only (for example: not talking about Madonna or Sammy Davis Jr). So, someone settle this argument."
Well it would be easier to give an answer if the parameters of what makes a person, "white," were given.
Personally, I'd say Jewish people are anywhere from almost a pale color to shades of brown.
Personally, I'd say Jewish people are anywhere from almost a pale color to shades of brown.
QUOTE
How do you define "Caucasoid"?
From what I know, Caucasoids are defined as people with wide eyes, sharp noses, straight hair and a few other things regarding the shape of their skulls.QUOTE
BTW Jagger, since you know a lot, I am Polynesian and I would like to know your opinion on them. A hybrid between Australoid and Mongoloid? Since the Y Chromosome (from father to son) is similar to Melanesians/Papuan (however not gene specific haplotypes) and the mtDNA (from mother to offspring) favours south east asia? And if you havent seen what the real thing looks like (not many know what real Polys are), just look at me sig Id like to know your opinion on them since you know a lot.
I'm not quite sure about Polynesians as their origins are quite mysterious but they apparently have a mix of Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Australoid features, as people may have migrated from parts of Asia and the Americas to the Pacific Islands, including Australoids (the first ones), Malays, Chinese, Dravidians, Egyptians, Incans... but I can't really confirm it. Easter Island though, has some evidence suggesting it was inhabited by these people, like statues from China and South America, the Harappan script from Pakistan, and a few more artifacts from Egypt and South-East Asia.QUOTE
BTW, is this your major in College or something?
Nah, I ain't doing any course like that. I'm just doing maths & comp science, which is like the opposite to history/archealogy/anthrapology... but you can still learn a lot from just googling around. 
QUOTE
I'm not quite sure about Polynesians as their origins are quite mysterious but they apparently have a mix of Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Australoid features, as people may have migrated from parts of Asia and the Americas to the Pacific Islands, including Australoids (the first ones), Malays, Chinese, Dravidians, Egyptians, Incans... but I can't really confirm it. Easter Island though, has some evidence suggesting it was inhabited by these people, like statues from China and South America, the Harappan script from Pakistan, and a few more artifacts from Egypt and South-East Asia.
Well a lot of my family passes for Blacks with a lot of people, like many other Polynesians that are rarely mixed. So thats why the Australoid part would make a lot of sense, although of course they do not have the charcoal type of skin, my cousins can get really dark.
Plus the body types as well.
I didnt know there were Egyptian artifacts in Rapa Nui, thats crazy. In terms of coming from the Americas, thats Thor Heydales theory where he proved the boat trip from South America to Easter Island. The thing is, the genetics doesn't favor the people of that area as it does with the Melanesians and South East Asians.
In terms of having Caucasoid features, I believe that would apply to a lot of Polys (due to the mix, I have that in my background) but mainly on New Zealand. In terms of Polynesian, I am not talking about those mixtures, but the aboriginals with no change in their genetics. Such as the ones in my signature.
BTW, you know a lot. You should major in anthropology too!
Are those people in your signature pure aboriginals? The picture isn't very clear but it looks to me they were probably Australoids, who were also the aboriginal inhabitants of South Asia, South-East Asia and Australasia aswell but originated from Africa (most humans had black skin in those days). It seems to me they must have travelled by sea craft all the way to the Pacific Islands from Asia, which was pretty advanced stuff in those days. The South-East Asians (possibly the Malays) must have arrived later than the aboriginals and eventually merged with them. I'm note sure if there were any other groups involved but your right, Polynesians have mostly Melanesian and South-East Asian ancestries.
I also think it's wierd that there's some Egyptian stuff at Easter Island there but they found some mummies and a few other things similar to what Egypt had. I also forgot to mention the Mesapotamians (Iraqis), since there was some other theory suggesting they also inhabited Easter Island. Much of the Indus Valley's Harappan script is almost identical to Easter Island's Rongorongo script, which could mean the ancient Dravidians (one of my ancestors) had some contact with the aboriginal people of Easter Island aswell (if there were any on it at the time). Some other theories suggest that Easter Island was probably a trading point for several different civilisations but that's just a possibility... Easter Island is definately a mysterious island.
I also think it's wierd that there's some Egyptian stuff at Easter Island there but they found some mummies and a few other things similar to what Egypt had. I also forgot to mention the Mesapotamians (Iraqis), since there was some other theory suggesting they also inhabited Easter Island. Much of the Indus Valley's Harappan script is almost identical to Easter Island's Rongorongo script, which could mean the ancient Dravidians (one of my ancestors) had some contact with the aboriginal people of Easter Island aswell (if there were any on it at the time). Some other theories suggest that Easter Island was probably a trading point for several different civilisations but that's just a possibility... Easter Island is definately a mysterious island.
QUOTE (northwestern_student @ Oct 23 2005, 03:19 AM)
it depends on your definition of white. if white means caucasoid, then semites are a caucasoid race, as are indians and iranians. but if you mean europid (nordic, alpine, or meditteranean races), then no.
Indians are not from the Caucasoid "race". Iranians are however.
QUOTE (Nadja @ Oct 23 2005, 03:26 AM)
@VietSk8rGUI: Well, according to Encarta, the exact definition is...
Aryan: Nazi ideal, in Nazi ideology, a white person of non-Semitic descent regarded as racially superior.
Aryan: Nazi ideal, in Nazi ideology, a white person of non-Semitic descent regarded as racially superior.
Aryans are an ethnic group that makes up the majourity of people in Iran and Tajikistan. Hitler, being an idiot (he had Jewish genes himself) decided on that term because the proto-Aryans groups migrated into Europe and the people there today are descended from that group with rare exceptions such as the Basque group in France and Spain and the Sámi people in Nordic, Baltic and Slavic Europe.
QUOTE (Jagger @ Oct 23 2005, 07:46 AM)
The Jews have the same Semitic descent as the Arabs and most of the original Jews were beige like the Arabs. Most of the ones with mixed Jewish-European descent have white skin, like the ones most of us know. So there is no proper answer to this question.
As for "Caucasoid", it's simply a anthrapological classification of physical features (not based on colour)... it doesn't have anything to do with being white/European. The American usage for the word "Caucasian" is scientifically FALSE, since Caucasians are not only white. Originally white Americans thought that only whites have the Caucasian physical structure, so that was the official classification given for white people. It was later discovered that most Arabs, Jews, South Asians, Turks, Kurds, etc, also have Caucasian physical features... but the Americans still used the word Caucasian solely to refer to white people to this day (much like how they use still "miles" to measure distance instead of the standardised "kilometres" the rest of the world uses). 60% of the world's population are Caucasoids and only about 10% of that are white Caucasoids, while the rest of them are yellow/biege/brown/red/black.
As for "Caucasoid", it's simply a anthrapological classification of physical features (not based on colour)... it doesn't have anything to do with being white/European. The American usage for the word "Caucasian" is scientifically FALSE, since Caucasians are not only white. Originally white Americans thought that only whites have the Caucasian physical structure, so that was the official classification given for white people. It was later discovered that most Arabs, Jews, South Asians, Turks, Kurds, etc, also have Caucasian physical features... but the Americans still used the word Caucasian solely to refer to white people to this day (much like how they use still "miles" to measure distance instead of the standardised "kilometres" the rest of the world uses). 60% of the world's population are Caucasoids and only about 10% of that are white Caucasoids, while the rest of them are yellow/biege/brown/red/black.
Asians, Pacific Islanders also have "Caucasoid" features such as straight hair and thin nose and lips. Those features are NOT exclusively Europeans so I reject your theory. "Caucasoid" features stretches more than just Europe and I know Indians that do not have "Caucasian" features at all. They DO NOT HOLD A PATENT to those features alone. And those features does not make you of a “Caucasoid” group, else virtually the entire planet with the exception of Indigenous Africans and some Asians countries (including Pacific Islands) are of the “Caucasoid” group.
Some Solomon Islanders and Australian Aborigines have naturally occurring straight blond, or red hair and thin lips, are they of the “Caucasoid” group as well?
QUOTE
Indians are not from the Caucasoid "race". Iranians are however.
Not even Indo-European Indians?
QUOTE
Asians, Pacific Islanders also have "Caucasoid" features such as straight hair and thin nose and lips.
Caucasoid hair was is still is not limited to just straight hair. Perfectly straight hair is a stereo-type of Asians and AmerIndians.
QUOTE
And those features does not make you of a “Caucasoid” group, else virtually the entire planet with the exception of Indigenous Africans and some Asians countries (including Pacific Islands) are of the “Caucasoid” group
Well East-Africans such as Eritreans, Ethiopians, and Somalian seem to have more these type of features.
QUOTE (juwanFromTaiwan @ Oct 24 2005, 01:53 AM)
Not even Indo-European Indians?
Well East-Africans such as Eritreans, Ethiopians, and Somalian seem to have more these type of features.
Well East-Africans such as Eritreans, Ethiopians, and Somalian seem to have more these type of features.
Indo-European is a language that originated from Asia and migrated to Europe, nothing more.
Misconception about Eastern Africans having those features, they do not generally.
I have known so many Eritreans (broke away from Ethiopia in civil war), Ethiopians and Somalians in my life time (after the civil war hundreds of thousands migrated as political asylum in this country, a lot migrated to Buffalo, NY where I lived for three years) that I can turn blue in the face however they look just like me. Some of them do have Arabic looking features because Ethiopia controlled Yemen and Oman centuries ago like 6th century (also why Omani and Yemenis look somewhat more African that say an Arab from Syria) and Oman controlled Tanzania and Zanzibar later on like 10th century.
QUOTE (Jagger)
Are those people in your signature pure aboriginals? The picture isn't very clear but it looks to me they were probably Australoids, who were also the aboriginal inhabitants of South Asia, South-East Asia and Australasia aswell but originated from Africa (most humans had black skin in those days). It seems to me they must have travelled by sea craft all the way to the Pacific Islands from Asia, which was pretty advanced stuff in those days. The South-East Asians (possibly the Malays) must have arrived later than the aboriginals and eventually merged with them. I'm note sure if there were any other groups involved but your right, Polynesians have mostly Melanesian and South-East Asian ancestries.
I also think it's wierd that there's some Egyptian stuff at Easter Island there but they found some mummies and a few other things similar to what Egypt had. I also forgot to mention the Mesapotamians (Iraqis), since there was some other theory suggesting they also inhabited Easter Island. Much of the Indus Valley's Harappan script is almost identical to Easter Island's Rongorongo script, which could mean the ancient Dravidians (one of my ancestors) had some contact with the aboriginal people of Easter Island aswell (if there were any on it at the time). Some other theories suggest that Easter Island was probably a trading point for several different civilisations but that's just a possibility... Easter Island is definately a mysterious island.
I also think it's wierd that there's some Egyptian stuff at Easter Island there but they found some mummies and a few other things similar to what Egypt had. I also forgot to mention the Mesapotamians (Iraqis), since there was some other theory suggesting they also inhabited Easter Island. Much of the Indus Valley's Harappan script is almost identical to Easter Island's Rongorongo script, which could mean the ancient Dravidians (one of my ancestors) had some contact with the aboriginal people of Easter Island aswell (if there were any on it at the time). Some other theories suggest that Easter Island was probably a trading point for several different civilisations but that's just a possibility... Easter Island is definately a mysterious island.
Yes they are. Mostly all Polynesians without no mixture looks like them. As a matter of fact, I have 3 cousins that looks like the king on the upper right:
We are related to the Kamehamehas, and everyone in that picture I have posted below are related to each other in some way (be it nephew, etc.) since a lot of Hawaiian culture relied on family ties, even marriage with brother and sister.
As far as the Malays coming later, that is during the plantation times (1900s) when the Americans had the Filipinos come over to the islands to work the plantations. Now you have little pure Native Hawaiians and a lot of Hawaiians that are mixed via Malays (because of the Plantations) and Asians (such as Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, etc.) most also due to plantations. So really it was a recent occurance of a mix (and thats what it is, a mix the people you speak of arent even pure Polynesian) and having our Native People die at a fast rate, majority of Hawaiians are mixed. In other islands, I don't know what the deal is if they have the same thing going on, but islands like Samoa and such are much more pure compared to Hawaiians.
But ya, to answer your question, thats the real 100% Polynesians in that picture I posted. I think the picture was taken in the 1800s. It's the Royal Family.
Thanks for more info on Easter Island. What a strange place, even more things to find there. Has there been any breakthrough whatsoever to your knowledge? That trading point idea would make a lot of sense, but like you mentioned it's just a theory.
Could you also please explain to me what Dravindian is? I have heard it in the Indian chat several times. Thanks for all your help!
QUOTE (bond007 @ Oct 24 2005, 12:19 AM)
QUOTE (Jagger @ Oct 23 2005, 07:46 AM)
The Jews have the same Semitic descent as the Arabs and most of the original Jews were beige like the Arabs. Most of the ones with mixed Jewish-European descent have white skin, like the ones most of us know. So there is no proper answer to this question.
As for "Caucasoid", it's simply a anthrapological classification of physical features (not based on colour)... it doesn't have anything to do with being white/European. The American usage for the word "Caucasian" is scientifically FALSE, since Caucasians are not only white. Originally white Americans thought that only whites have the Caucasian physical structure, so that was the official classification given for white people. It was later discovered that most Arabs, Jews, South Asians, Turks, Kurds, etc, also have Caucasian physical features... but the Americans still used the word Caucasian solely to refer to white people to this day (much like how they use still "miles" to measure distance instead of the standardised "kilometres" the rest of the world uses). 60% of the world's population are Caucasoids and only about 10% of that are white Caucasoids, while the rest of them are yellow/biege/brown/red/black.
As for "Caucasoid", it's simply a anthrapological classification of physical features (not based on colour)... it doesn't have anything to do with being white/European. The American usage for the word "Caucasian" is scientifically FALSE, since Caucasians are not only white. Originally white Americans thought that only whites have the Caucasian physical structure, so that was the official classification given for white people. It was later discovered that most Arabs, Jews, South Asians, Turks, Kurds, etc, also have Caucasian physical features... but the Americans still used the word Caucasian solely to refer to white people to this day (much like how they use still "miles" to measure distance instead of the standardised "kilometres" the rest of the world uses). 60% of the world's population are Caucasoids and only about 10% of that are white Caucasoids, while the rest of them are yellow/biege/brown/red/black.
Asians, Pacific Islanders also have "Caucasoid" features such as straight hair and thin nose and lips. Those features are NOT exclusively Europeans so I reject your theory. "Caucasoid" features stretches more than just Europe and I know Indians that do not have "Caucasian" features at all. They DO NOT HOLD A PATENT to those features alone. And those features does not make you of a “Caucasoid” group, else virtually the entire planet with the exception of Indigenous Africans and some Asians countries (including Pacific Islands) are of the “Caucasoid” group.
Some Solomon Islanders and Australian Aborigines have naturally occurring straight blond, or red hair and thin lips, are they of the “Caucasoid” group as well?
Pacific Islanders as in who? Melanesians, Polynesians, Micronesians, which ones? Solomon Islands are considered Pacific Islanders, so who exactly are you talking about? I have seen the Australian Aborigines with blond hair, I think it looks great.
Polynesians do not have straight hair, but more wavy if anything. Or is that considered the same as straight? Nose aint thin either or the lips IMO, unless you are only comparing it to tje Negroid?
BTW, I enjoyed reading your posts, thanks.
QUOTE (kollision @ Oct 24 2005, 04:30 AM)
Pacific Islanders as in who? Melanesians, Polynesians, Micronesians, which ones? Solomon Islands are considered Pacific Islanders, so who exactly are you talking about? I have seen the Australian Aborigines with blond hair, I think it looks great.
Polynesians do not have straight hair, but more wavy if anything. Or is that considered the same as straight? Nose aint thin either or the lips IMO, unless you are only comparing it to tje Negroid?
BTW, I enjoyed reading your posts, thanks.
Polynesians do not have straight hair, but more wavy if anything. Or is that considered the same as straight? Nose aint thin either or the lips IMO, unless you are only comparing it to tje Negroid?
BTW, I enjoyed reading your posts, thanks.
Some Polynesians like Maoris have straight hair and not curly or wavy. Polynesians do not have peppercorn hair like indigenous Africans. Melanesians do have the peppercorn hair like the indigenous African but not as tightly bound. Most of the planet have straight hair, be it wavy, curly or such with the exception of most indigenous Africans. Wavy but straight. Some from Tonga and Samoa have straight nose. BUT a lot of European-whites have curly or frizzy hair and broad noses (still straight).
Japanese, Siberians, Tatars have pale white skin and narrow noses. Those features are not exclusively "white-European" hence I refute the word "Caucasoid". Moreover, since in my opinion white-Europeans are divergence from Asians (Asians have been on this planet longer that white-European, that is proven) the terminology "Asiatic" is more appropriate.
If you go or know people from Solomon Islander, some parts of Guinea, Vanuatu and such a lot of them like Australian Aborigines have red or yellow hair naturally. Of course White - Europeans thought that feature was only reserved for them. What I am trying to convey is that we are all related as Homo sapiens, we are not aliens or different "races" like organisms from the planets Saturn and Pluto would be if inhabited. We all share common and distinctive phenotypes and genotypes. We all of 46 chromosomes, we all breath air, live and die the same.
QUOTE
Indians are not from the Caucasoid "race". Iranians are however.
I don't think there is a Caucasoid "race", it's just a anthropological classification. As for the Indians, it depends which ones you're talking about. The Indo-Aryans (Northern Indians) have strong Caucasoid features with varying degrees of Australoid and Mongoloid features, the Dravidians (Southern Indians) have a strong mix of both Caucasoid and Australoid features, while the North-East Indians have a strong mix of Mongoloid and Caucasoid features.QUOTE
Aryans are an ethnic group that makes up the majourity of people in Iran and Tajikistan. Hitler, being an idiot (he had Jewish genes himself) decided on that term because the proto-Aryans groups migrated into Europe and the people there today are descended from that group with rare exceptions such as the Basque group in France and Spain and the Sámi people in Nordic, Baltic and Slavic Europe.
There isn't any evidence that Europeans descend from the "Aryans", which is a term the Proto-Indo-Iranians used to refer to themselves as. There is too much hype given to the term "Aryan" when all it means is "noble" in Sanskrit (Indian) and Avestan (Persian). There is strong evidence however that Iranians, Indo-Aryans (Northern Indians), Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Afghans, Kurds, Tajiks and various Central Asian groups that speak Indo-Iranian languages (a branch of the Indo-European language family), are descendants of Aryans (Indo-Iranians).QUOTE
Asians, Pacific Islanders also have "Caucasoid" features such as straight hair and thin nose and lips. Those features are NOT exclusively Europeans so I reject your theory. "Caucasoid" features stretches more than just Europe and I know Indians that do not have "Caucasian" features at all. They DO NOT HOLD A PATENT to those features alone. And those features does not make you of a “Caucasoid” group, else virtually the entire planet with the exception of Indigenous Africans and some Asians countries (including Pacific Islands) are of the “Caucasoid” group.
Some Solomon Islanders and Australian Aborigines have naturally occurring straight blond, or red hair and thin lips, are they of the “Caucasoid” group as well?
Caucasoid is nothing more than an anthropological classification of phenotypes and skull shapes, it doesn't mean anything more than that. It doesn't necessarily have to mean that there is a Caucasoid "race". The Caucasoid classification includes most people from Europe, South Asia, Middle East, North Africa, parts of Central Asia, aswell as various other mixed ethnic groups around the world (like the Pacific Islands). Not everyone has a "pure" Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Negroid/Australoid phenotype but people that have a dominant Caucasoid phenotype would generally be considered Caucasoid, and the same goes for Mongoloids, Negroids and Australoids. You have to take into account that mixtures cause people to have mixed phenotypes.Some Solomon Islanders and Australian Aborigines have naturally occurring straight blond, or red hair and thin lips, are they of the “Caucasoid” group as well?
QUOTE
Caucasoid hair was is still is not limited to just straight hair. Perfectly straight hair is a stereo-type of Asians and AmerIndians.
I never said straight hair is limited to Caucasoids because almost all Mongoloids also have straight hair, along with some Australoid groups. It's the different combination of phenotypes and skull shapes that define a Caucasoid, Mongoloid, etc.QUOTE
Could you also please explain to me what Dravindian is? I have heard it in the Indian chat several times. Thanks for all your help!
Dravidians are the darker-skinned Indians living in South India. They originally belonged to the Elamo-Dravidian group in the Middle East and migrated to India over 8000 years ago (or more) and merged with the native Australoids inhabiting India to form the modern Dravidians. The Dravidians were responsible for the Indus Valley Civilisation about 5000 years ago, while the Elamo-Dravidians that remained in the Middle East became Elamites and had their own Elamite Empire in the Middle East at around the same time. The Aryans migrated to India later on and merged with the Dravidians to form the modern Indo-Aryans that inhabit most of Northern India, Bangladesh and Pakistan.QUOTE
Polynesians do not have straight hair, but more wavy if anything. Or is that considered the same as straight? Nose aint thin either or the lips IMO, unless you are only comparing it to tje Negroid?
Wavy hair is usually a trait associated with Australoids but there are people from other groups that also have this feature due to mixed ancestry, like the Dravidians, South-East Asians, North Africans, Pacific Islanders, etc.QUOTE
Japanese, Siberians, Tatars have pale white skin and narrow noses. Those features are not exclusively "white-European" hence I refute the word "Caucasoid". Moreover, since in my opinion white-Europeans are divergence from Asians (Asians have been on this planet longer that white-European, that is proven) the terminology "Asiatic" is more appropriate.
If you go or know people from Solomon Islander, some parts of Guinea, Vanuatu and such a lot of them like Australian Aborigines have red or yellow hair naturally. Of course White - Europeans thought that feature was only reserved for them. What I am trying to convey is that we are all related as Homo sapiens, we are not aliens or different "races" like organisms from the planets Saturn and Pluto would be if inhabited. We all share common and distinctive phenotypes and genotypes. We all of 46 chromosomes, we all breath air, live and die the same.
I don't think narrow noses only belong to Caucasoids, it's usually just "sharp" noses that are associated to Caucasoids but there can be others with it aswell due to mixtures. Also, there are different types of "Asiatic" peoples as Asia is the most diverse continent in the world. Sometimes it's necessary to break them up into seperate classifications just for the sake of convenience. These classifications aren't there just there so some groups can express superiority over others (like it used to be a century ago), they're useful for describing general phenotypes and tracing back our own ancestries (along with genetics).
If you go or know people from Solomon Islander, some parts of Guinea, Vanuatu and such a lot of them like Australian Aborigines have red or yellow hair naturally. Of course White - Europeans thought that feature was only reserved for them. What I am trying to convey is that we are all related as Homo sapiens, we are not aliens or different "races" like organisms from the planets Saturn and Pluto would be if inhabited. We all share common and distinctive phenotypes and genotypes. We all of 46 chromosomes, we all breath air, live and die the same.
QUOTE (bond007 @ Oct 24 2005, 11:00 AM)
QUOTE (kollision @ Oct 24 2005, 04:30 AM)
Pacific Islanders as in who? Melanesians, Polynesians, Micronesians, which ones? Solomon Islands are considered Pacific Islanders, so who exactly are you talking about? I have seen the Australian Aborigines with blond hair, I think it looks great.
Polynesians do not have straight hair, but more wavy if anything. Or is that considered the same as straight? Nose aint thin either or the lips IMO, unless you are only comparing it to tje Negroid?
BTW, I enjoyed reading your posts, thanks.
Polynesians do not have straight hair, but more wavy if anything. Or is that considered the same as straight? Nose aint thin either or the lips IMO, unless you are only comparing it to tje Negroid?
BTW, I enjoyed reading your posts, thanks.
Some Polynesians like Maoris have straight hair and not curly or wavy. Polynesians do not have peppercorn hair like indigenous Africans. Melanesians do have the peppercorn hair like the indigenous African but not as tightly bound. Most of the planet have straight hair, be it wavy, curly or such with the exception of most indigenous Africans. Wavy but straight. Some from Tonga and Samoa have straight nose. BUT a lot of European-whites have curly or frizzy hair and broad noses (still straight).
Japanese, Siberians, Tatars have pale white skin and narrow noses. Those features are not exclusively "white-European" hence I refute the word "Caucasoid". Moreover, since in my opinion white-Europeans are divergence from Asians (Asians have been on this planet longer that white-European, that is proven) the terminology "Asiatic" is more appropriate.
If you go or know people from Solomon Islander, some parts of Guinea, Vanuatu and such a lot of them like Australian Aborigines have red or yellow hair naturally. Of course White - Europeans thought that feature was only reserved for them. What I am trying to convey is that we are all related as Homo sapiens, we are not aliens or different "races" like organisms from the planets Saturn and Pluto would be if inhabited. We all share common and distinctive phenotypes and genotypes. We all of 46 chromosomes, we all breath air, live and die the same.
Maoris do not count though as that is a mixture, not really Pure Polynesian, right? So how could we put them into the group without mentioning that they are mixed, and that's the reason they have those features? Plus it is a recent change withing the people there, so it wouldn't constitute as their own features, but a mix correct?
Polynesians do not have peppercorn, but neither does Africans? I remember I read something in regards to Melanesians having Peppercorn hair, but that that type of hair is different from the frizzy hair that Africans have.
And saying that only Africans have frizzy hair, wouldn't that basically be the same as saying only Whites have red and Blonde hair? It's the same concept, isn't it?
QUOTE (Jagger)
Dravidians are the darker-skinned Indians living in South India. They originally belonged to the Elamo-Dravidian group in the Middle East and migrated to India over 8000 years ago (or more) and merged with the native Australoids inhabiting India to form the modern Dravidians. The Dravidians were responsible for the Indus Valley Civilisation about 5000 years ago, while the Elamo-Dravidians that remained in the Middle East became Elamites and had their own Elamite Empire in the Middle East at around the same time. The Aryans migrated to India later on and merged with the Dravidians to form the modern Indo-Aryans that inhabit most of Northern India, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
Ah, ok thanks for that. Now I know a little bit mre on Dravidians. Are the Elamo-Dravidians naturally light or dark as well?
QUOTE (Jagger)
Wavy hair is usually a trait associated with Australoids but there are people from other groups that also have this feature due to mixed ancestry, like the Dravidians, South-East Asians, North Africans, Pacific Islanders, etc.
Ah, ok thanks!
I consider them white in general but like many other different groups in a race. They are all ranked. Like some Europeans may look down on southern Italians and Sicilians since they are darker and closer to Africa. (or so many Italians in my school say)
QUOTE (Nadja @ Oct 23 2005, 02:01 AM)
Okay, this has been bugging me. I had an argument with someone about this. I think Jews are white, he says they're not. So...uh...What do you think? Now, I'm talking about people from a Semitic background, not Jewish by religion only (for example: not talking about Madonna or Sammy Davis Jr). So, someone settle this argument.
To be totally correct They can be any color you have ethopian Jews who are Black..
But the majority of American Jews are white.
QUOTE (kollision @ Oct 25 2005, 01:05 AM)
QUOTE (Jagger)
Dravidians are the darker-skinned Indians living in South India. They originally belonged to the Elamo-Dravidian group in the Middle East and migrated to India over 8000 years ago (or more) and merged with the native Australoids inhabiting India to form the modern Dravidians. The Dravidians were responsible for the Indus Valley Civilisation about 5000 years ago, while the Elamo-Dravidians that remained in the Middle East became Elamites and had their own Elamite Empire in the Middle East at around the same time. The Aryans migrated to India later on and merged with the Dravidians to form the modern Indo-Aryans that inhabit most of Northern India, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
Ah, ok thanks for that. Now I know a little bit mre on Dravidians. Are the Elamo-Dravidians naturally light or dark as well?
Recent evidence found suggests that the ancient Sumerians of Mesopotamia (modern Iraq), who were responsible for the first written language in the world, also had darker skin than most other Middle Easterners and were racially related to the Elamites (in ancient Iran) and Dravidians. In fact, the Sumerians, Elamites and Dravidians all existed at around the same time 5000 years ago and used to have regular contact with each other, as they may have all had similar ancestry. The Elamites were later assimilated by the migrating Aryans, resulting in the modern Iranians (much like how Indo-Aryans/Northern-Indians were formed by Aryans mixing with Dravidians). The Sumerians were also assimilated by later migrants to Mesopotamia, like the Semites, Persians, Hurrians and Indo-Aryans to an extent. I find it quite interesting that these very-dark-skinned people formed the most advanced civilisations at the time (Indus Valley, Sumer/Mesopotamia, Elamite Kingdom) which would have been unbelievable for Europeans a century ago (they also used to find it unbelievable how black-skinned people had travelled all the way to the Pacific Islands long before them).
QUOTE (Nadja @ Oct 23 2005, 02:01 PM)
Okay, this has been bugging me. I had an argument with someone about this. I think Jews are white, he says they're not. So...uh...What do you think? Now, I'm talking about people from a Semitic background, not Jewish by religion only (for example: not talking about Madonna or Sammy Davis Jr). So, someone settle this argument.
there is a distinct race of people who originally were the jews of the middle east
and so "gods chosen people" were probably iraqi looking people
also many claim jesus was black so perhaps he beiing the most famous of the jews they should all be.
Wow...I had no idea this thread got so many responses...it'll take awhile to read all that.
QUOTE (Jagger @ Oct 25 2005, 12:06 AM)
QUOTE (kollision @ Oct 25 2005, 01:05 AM)
QUOTE (Jagger)
Dravidians are the darker-skinned Indians living in South India. They originally belonged to the Elamo-Dravidian group in the Middle East and migrated to India over 8000 years ago (or more) and merged with the native Australoids inhabiting India to form the modern Dravidians. The Dravidians were responsible for the Indus Valley Civilisation about 5000 years ago, while the Elamo-Dravidians that remained in the Middle East became Elamites and had their own Elamite Empire in the Middle East at around the same time. The Aryans migrated to India later on and merged with the Dravidians to form the modern Indo-Aryans that inhabit most of Northern India, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
Ah, ok thanks for that. Now I know a little bit mre on Dravidians. Are the Elamo-Dravidians naturally light or dark as well?
Recent evidence found suggests that the ancient Sumerians of Mesopotamia (modern Iraq), who were responsible for the first written language in the world, also had darker skin than most other Middle Easterners and were racially related to the Elamites (in ancient Iran) and Dravidians. In fact, the Sumerians, Elamites and Dravidians all existed at around the same time 5000 years ago and used to have regular contact with each other, as they may have all had similar ancestry. The Elamites were later assimilated by the migrating Aryans, resulting in the modern Iranians (much like how Indo-Aryans/Northern-Indians were formed by Aryans mixing with Dravidians). The Sumerians were also assimilated by later migrants to Mesopotamia, like the Semites, Persians, Hurrians and Indo-Aryans to an extent. I find it quite interesting that these very-dark-skinned people formed the most advanced civilisations at the time (Indus Valley, Sumer/Mesopotamia, Elamite Kingdom) which would have been unbelievable for Europeans a century ago (they also used to find it unbelievable how black-skinned people had travelled all the way to the Pacific Islands long before them).
Wow thats a lot to digest but thanks. In regards to them believing that Black Skinned people travelled all that way, I guess they like to think that they discover everything
2 I believe that theres oral stories of old of white skinned people coming to Hawaii, but it's speculated that it was the Japanese a long time ago. There was no intermingling, but I guess trade.
QUOTE(Nadja @ Oct 23 2005, 03:01 AM) [snapback]1161305[/snapback]
Okay, this has been bugging me. I had an argument with someone about this. I think Jews are white, he says they're not. So...uh...What do you think? Now, I'm talking about people from a Semitic background, not Jewish by religion only (for example: not talking about Madonna or Sammy Davis Jr). So, someone settle this argument.
Jews are not white but there are white Jews out there.
Original Jews are from Israel and they spread their religion to Europe. Many European adopted the Jewish religion just like many Chinese, Korean and Japanese adopted the Buddist religion but that doesn't make Japanese, Chinese and Koreans Indians.
there are white nationalist groups that hate jews... and think that they are ruining America.
QUOTE(shaolin01 @ Apr 19 2006, 01:03 PM) [snapback]1767115[/snapback]
there are white nationalist groups that hate jews... and think that they are ruining America.
oh.. c'on dude.. here is forum for Asia not America.
QUOTE(danoc @ Apr 19 2006, 01:05 PM) [snapback]1767123[/snapback]
oh.. c'on dude.. here is forum for Asia not America.
yeah but the point is there not the same
they view each other differently
i always thought judiasm was a religion, not a race. unless you were talking about the shephardic (sp?) and azkenenzaic (sp?) jews.
Question is so dumb. It should be nominated The Dumbest question on AF , the second place goes to When Cantonese will die out.
The original Jews were Semitic and looked similar to Arabs.
The majority of modern Jews are Ashkenazi Jews (white Jews), so look similar to white Europeans, but with darker features.
There are also many modern Jews that look Indian, Chinese and African.
The majority of modern Jews are Ashkenazi Jews (white Jews), so look similar to white Europeans, but with darker features.
There are also many modern Jews that look Indian, Chinese and African.
people. "jew" is a boy or a lady with jewish relligion.
if you want to talk about a ethnic of this people then talk about hebrew(they do life outside of israel and dont have israel citizenchip) or israeli(israel citizens(muslim and christs to).
if you want to talk about their "race" then use biologic or anthropologic term for it (mongoloide,caucasoide,semite,africaide) not rasist terms (white,black,broun,yellow).
it is better for understand of differences.
-
if you want to talk about a ethnic of this people then talk about hebrew(they do life outside of israel and dont have israel citizenchip) or israeli(israel citizens(muslim and christs to).
if you want to talk about their "race" then use biologic or anthropologic term for it (mongoloide,caucasoide,semite,africaide) not rasist terms (white,black,broun,yellow).
it is better for understand of differences.
-
is the question are jews white colour? answer no
is the question abiout white race? answer then that depends on how yo define the white race.
some people include spanish and italians in that others dont. some only include the anglo saxon people.
its like saying are indians asians? it all depends on how you define the thing
if you defone jews as a race then you should be talking about that. but the jewish religion can have balcks and asians and does. so the question could be better
is the question abiout white race? answer then that depends on how yo define the white race.
some people include spanish and italians in that others dont. some only include the anglo saxon people.
its like saying are indians asians? it all depends on how you define the thing
if you defone jews as a race then you should be talking about that. but the jewish religion can have balcks and asians and does. so the question could be better
mixed race (rasistic view)
A Jew is anyone that speaks Hebrew and is a follower of Judaism. It is more of a cultural group rather than a "race", but most Jews do have traces of Semitic ancestry.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.