Black or African-American?

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

Ask and ye shall receive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

As used in the United States, "caucasian" simply refers to skin color not region of origin. In Europe "caucasian" refers to people from that region.

How the name for that region came be used as the descriptive term for white people is an interesting bit of racist science history. Without going into details, the term was used because that's where early 19th science though the skull features of northern Europeans would ultimately be traced.

Before I even got to Alex's post I was reading this.

Originally Posted by Blumenbach, a "Scientist"

Caucasian variety - I have taken the name of this variety from Mount Caucasus, both because its neighborhood, and especially its southern slope, produces the most beautiful race of men, I mean the Georgian; and because all physiological reasons converge to this, that in that region, if anywhere, it seems we ought with the greatest probability to place the autochthones (birth place) of mankind.

I swear, I'm almost insulted that my supposed grouping was created due to such subjectively prejudiced pseudo-science. I'm not insulted by much, either, but I'm rather horrified that I've been putting "one of the beautiful people" on every form I've filled out.

I know it doesn't really mean that any more, but the origin leaves me with a sullied feeling. I'd rather be called white.

In that regard, I actually dig the idea of calling myself Eastern European, though that's only half my ancestry. I identify as an Eastern European Jewish American, I guess. Not that it matters.

[AllyOops!]

Remember the "flesh" coloured crayon? I found that to be narrow-minded. "Flesh" was a pale peach colour.

Having said that, I keep things in the honest vein & just fill out "dumbass" on all of my forms. You'd be surprised how many jobs I don't get.

[Alex]

We all have the same color flesh. We just have different color skin.

Personally I don't "identify" myself by my ancestors at all. The fact that my maternal grandfather was born in Norway is of zero interest to me and how I live my life. I'm no more a Kansan because my paternal grandparents were born there than I am a German because my great-great-great-great-great-granparents were born there. If it turns out that my great-grandmother was actually Malaysian, that makes me no more Asian.

My skin is "white" because my ancestors were white. I am not German because they were German. Ethnicity, race, and nationality are not passed through DNA.

Plus, pretty much all groups assume their look is the most beautiful. Is it Koreans that have a folktale about how when God was finishing the people of the earth, the white people came out of the oven too soon, the black people were in too long, but the Asians were just right? (I know I've heard that somewhere but now it will turn out to be from some horrible source.)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

My skin is "white" because my ancestors were white. I am not German because they were German. Ethnicity, race, and nationality are not passed through DNA.

No, but who you were raised by tends to matter. I doubt it's coincidence that both I and my sister ended up with spouses whose families are from Chicago (our family is from Chicago), even though neither she nor I were raised there or had even visited there. As a matter of fact, of the 4 of us (myself, my wife, my sister, and her husband), only my brother in law was actually raised in Chicago. But there is no doubt that part of the reason we we all get along so well is a certain amount of commonality based on the Chicago connection. It's a cultural thing.

That's why I still, and likely will always, identify as "eastern European Jew", even though I've never been to Eastern Europe and I'm 3 generations removed from anyone who lived in Europe and am closer to agnostic than a practicing Jew. Because I know that when I meet someone else connected to an eastern European ancestor, there is a high likelihood that we will share a certain commonality of culture.

Culture, race, ethnicity, and nationality are imprecise, overlapping, and routinely misused. But they are also quite interleaved. It's true that in the end, culture is the main thread that binds any people together. It just happens that the other "traits" are often a convenient shorthand, imprecise as they may be.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

No, but who you were raised by tends to matter. I doubt it's coincidence that both I and my sister ended up with spouses whose families are from Chicago (our family is from Chicago), even though neither she nor I were raised there or had even visited there. As a matter of fact, of the 4 of us (myself, my wife, my sister, and her husband), only my brother in law was actually raised in Chicago. But there is no doubt that part of the reason we we all get along so well is a certain amount of commonality based on the Chicago connection. It's a cultural thing.

Then explain why I (first generation Californain from OLD East Coast stock, Mayflower decendent, and pure Brit Mutt even in America) married Chris (first generation American, from old German family with White Rissian roots)? There is no common cultural connection between us at all......unless you count punk rock.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

......unless you count punk rock.

You, me, and Iggy Pop - "I'm a punk rocker, yes I am"

[wendybeth]

I run into the PC thing all the time when dealing with people who can't hear well or at all. Some prefer deaf, others Deaf, others 'hearing impaired', and still others 'hard of hearing'. Some view their hearing loss as a more descriptive term (deaf), while others are Deaf culture hardcore and it is a statement about them as a whole. Ironically, these persons are often the most intolerant of others who are different and can be a big PITA. (They are right now in the process of ruining Gaulledet University). Tori prefers the term 'hearing impaired', as 'hard of hearing' seems so geriatric.

Right now in Spokane a member of the Parks board is in hot water for referring to a former board member in a not PC way- he said 'colored', and one of the groups making the biggest stink is The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

Then explain why I (first generation Californain from OLD East Coast stock, Mayflower decendent, and pure Brit Mutt even in America) married Chris (first generation American, from old German family with White Rissian roots)? There is no common cultural connection between us at all......unless you count punk rock.

Nothing's absolute. Even identical twins don't come out with the exact same personalities. Shared culture is one of many factors. But it's one that, on the average, plays a significant role. When you're talking average in a large sampling, you'll always be able to find examples of outliers, but that doesn't negate the importance (e.g., One dude living to 115 on a diet consisting wholly of unflavored yogurt and cigar smoke doesn't change the fact that the same diet would kill most people).

But yes, I would count punk rock. Culture is a malleable thing, we all belong to and are influenced by different cultures and subcultures. And we're all more likely to have things in common with people whose cultural context contains something that matches our own.

In my case, living in the San Fernando Valley, there is no shortage of people of eastern European Jewish cultural decent, nor a shortage of people of Chicogan cultural decent. Geographic/national and religious culture is pretty strong and often the easiest to connect with, so given a large sampling it's likely people sharing those will be drawn together. Absent that (I can't imagine there are too many Mayflower descendants around LA), something like aesthetic culture makes for a good second tier connection.