Talk:White people/Archive 9

That picture is perfectly representative. I do not include it because I do not know yet how to do it. And Pavarotti, leaving also the pictures that are there now too. So, the picture section would be less biased. Veritas et Severitas 19:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As to Dark t. and other users what can we say? I have said more than once that some (only some I want to leave this clear) Americans, Australians, etc.. think themselves whiter and more European than the Europeans themselves. It may be just because they live in countries that have an intensive history of bigotry and they cannot swallow easily that they are increasingly becoming non-White nations (in my opinion much more interesting for that, but they obviously see it differently). Just travel to any US city. The country is no more "white" than some South American countries, and I could bet my right hand that Uruguay and Argentina are right now "whiter" than the US by all means. It does not matter what their statistics say or how their media want to present them on TV or in the movies. Anyone who knows the country well knows it. Their position is probably one way to steam off the growing inferiority complex of some radical "whites"(because of their view on white and non-white peoples and nations). It must piss them off that some South American or even Muslim countries like Turkey are by all means whiter than their countries and nations. It is sad. They may deserve some understanding. A shoulder to cry on. So they come here with their risible arguments: But these are considered white and those not by my uncle! It sounds like a desperate cry to claim their "whiteness" or their "Europeanness" or God knows what. Anyway, in the case of the Americans, I would go around more cautiously. Some of them seem to ignore to which extent anti-Americanism has often a racist tinge and it does not only come from Arab countries. Have just a look at this fascist site and how Anglo-Americans are portrayed below the Hitler pictures. See:

http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2007/01/

If you cannot open it, I have cut and posted this part:

U.S. is definitely Judeo-Saxon in every sense: culturally, socially, and morally. The old-money W.A.S.P.s and Ashkenazi Jews are also increasingly intermarrying one another, so within a few generations, distinctions may be further blurred than at present.

As the great German intellectual Werner Sombart said: “Americanism is to a great extent distilled Judaism.”

Should we use these spurious and radical views now to claim that Anglo-Americans are not white, because as some people have been insisting here (some Americans, by the way), Jews are not white? Veritas et Severitas 20:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As I recall in the USA the Jews were not considered white. From what I studied white in america ment Anglo-Saxon backgroup, British people also. Last I remember the British and americans(USA)always had their own definition for who was "white". Everyone knows americans dream about being British, they have always looked up to their english speaking friends. I know for a fact that every article about race/ethnic groups americans write seems to be very racists. --Margrave1206 02:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and how about the indigenous Scandinavians and Celtic people that have black hair? They're not White too? Perhaps it is true that some of the users of this article are basing their facts on Nazism and Nordicism ideas of the White race. --203.15.122.35 02:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I should force my friend to pose as an example, he is Greek but damn, you would never belive it. When you see his mother or father you wouldn't you belive that they are Greek either. I mean when he told me that he was Greek I was like yeah right the dude is as German as it gets. But nope, he is fully Greek. VERY light blonde hair, blue eyes totaly German looking facial structure and he is tall as hell too, like 195cm something (17years old). I know the picture that I have of mediterraneans isn't correct but I always see 'em looking like Turks, black hair brown eyes short ppl :P. I mean seriously I didn't belive that he was Greek untill he started speaking Greek. Anyway what I'm trying to say is that you can find "extreme whites" everywhere of every European acestry. But then again my gril friend who is German has black hair although she does have blue eyes id belive her more if she said that she was greek than I would my Greek class mate.--DerMeister 20:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Heres a race map made by an american anthropligist made in 1899. The most interesting and relevant thing is that he shows that people living in certain areas of the british isles are of medditeranean appearance. Im sure most people will be unaware of this so i think it has relevance to the article. It also shows germany is not entirely nordic which is contrary to the stereotype .

race map http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Passing_of_the_Great_Race_-_Map_4.jpg race article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_race

--Globe01 19:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Just two comments:

1. Berbers have always been considered ¨white´by physical anthropology. I do not care about uncle Tom again and the American mental diarrhoea in racial issues, although the US census itself classifies them as ¨white¨¨. So it seems that this mental diarrhoea does not represent Americans officially, but just "some" Americans or others.

2. The lack of reference in the Physical section to dark hair is incredible and should be fixed.

3. The pictures should be fixed and be more representative and less tendentious.

I will not do it myself but I will support other users if they want to do it. Veritas et Severitas 17:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Berbers have not always been considered white in physical anthropology. First, white was not a racial group recognized by all anthropologists. Second, all historical anthropologists did not group them with Europeans. Thomas Huxley considered them to be racially "Melanochroi" (dark color), Arthur Comte de Gobineau considered them to be "degenerative" formed by the miscegenation of the white and black races, and Eickstedt considered them to be Mediterraneans in a system where he did not envision the greater Caucasoid race which would tie them to Europe.--^DarkTea 05:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

All that is needed is the mention of the fact that some indigenous Europeans who are not Jews, Gypsies, Basques, Eastern Europeans, Turkish, Sami, Italians, Greeks, or Spaniards have black hair. We cannot show that whites have black hair if the questionable whites are used as proof or else it would beg the question if they were really whites. Everyone has seen black hair and most people have black hair, so there is no need to discuss this trait further than a passing note.--^DarkTea 05:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

To add to the Berber note, remember that they are not at all a homogenous group. You have plenty of black Berbers like the

Ethiopia

07:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

dark tea you racist you quote berbers as being "the miscegenation of the white and black races". You may not agree with that statement but at least et us know by showing us your opinon of the statement.

In terms of black hair, the vast majority of irish and welsh people have black hair and they are considered white. Anthropoligits consider the welsh to be of almost entirely medieterranean [2] appearance yet the welsh are still considered white but some do not consider other mediteranean appearing nations such as italinas to be white.

There is a lot of controversy in the term of applying white to nations, (mainly from historical nordicism and pastpolitical agendasit is stupid, some italians are blond haired and blue eyed, very small numebers of scandinavians have a med appearance yet scandinavians are called a white nation.

No nation is white or non white, merely there are just different rations of white to non white poeple in those nations. --Globe01 17:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not even respond to Dark T. He makes no sense at all. Just look at his/her comments. Since administrators do not have what it takes to block people like that, at least just ignore people with severe mental diarrhoea. Note: He is the guy who said that Hitler would be a good example for the pictures or Stormfronters good contributors here. I think that is about enough for this guy. Anyway, just to uncover this guy once and for all:

1. Dark T. is a troll that defends strange Nazi-like ideas, that are even more extreme than the ones of the Nazis themselves.

2. Or, he/she is someone who hates so-called white people, Jewish people, etc, so much that will do anything to post here racist comments all the time as some kind of strategy for some kind of agenda.

In any case, as said. I propose that you just ignore him/her and keep an eye out for him/her as well in the body of the article.

And about Berber: Yes my friends, Berbers were classified as whites by 20th century main anthropologists and for the Americans that are very interested in this article, the US census classifies them as white (I do not have to give the links again, they are above). That is it. Something else is if we can speak of a discrete white race as was traditionally assumed or not etc. My opinion is 'No", but that applies to all people that wee classified as white, not just to Berbers. And again, uncle Tom's and Aunt Annies opinions are opinions of no concern here, let alone the opinions of Nazi-Nordicists that are an insult to intelligence.

And as to the issue that Berbers are a diverse people:

1. Who are not a diverse people? According to genetic anthropology (science, not aunt Annie again) with the possible exception of some Eskimos and some tribes in the remotest places of the planet, the rest of the peoples are all very diverse peoples indeed.

2 Are Americans, Australians or Brazilians not diverse? Should we say that because of that none of them should be considered "white" or that Americans, etc are not white people.

Anyway, as to some questions here, let us start with the hair section. I will just make a very extremely objective and short presentation.Veritas et Severitas 18:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a bad analogy. Old stock white Americans and white Australians can trace their bloodlines since they kept record of them, have historically had laws against miscegenation and ostracized multiracial people from white society by the rule of hypodescent. Brazilians and Berbers have not kept track of their bloodlines. Brazilians were formed from the miscegenation of whites and blacks whose coupling populated Brazilian society. The degree of admixture broke the color-line, preventing adequate distinctions between pure whites and blacks. In a like manner, Berbers live in the borderlands of blacks and brown North Africans, making their blood indiscernable. If we posit North Africans as white, we can still justify a conclusion that Berbers are not white by the consideration of hypodescent.--^DarkTea 20:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Really, Dark T. here you have again what some people think of Americans:

http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2007/01/

If you cannot open it, I have cut and posted this part:

U.S. is definitely Judeo-Saxon in every sense: culturally, socially, and morally. The old-money W.A.S.P.s and Ashkenazi Jews are also increasingly intermarrying one another, so within a few generations, distinctions may be further blurred than at present.

As the great German intellectual Werner Sombart said: “Americanism is to a great extent distilled Judaism.”

You can also check what "some" Europeans think about Americans in Anti-Americanism.

If you are too lazy to read I will help you cutting and pasting:

Racialism

In the middle of the nineteenth century, the racialist theories of Arthur de Gobineau and others spread through Europe. The presence of blacks and "lower quality" immigrant groups made racialist thinkers discount the potential of the United States. The infinite mixing of America would lead to the ultimate degeneracy. Gobineau said that America was creating "greatest mediocrity in all fields: mediocrity of physical strength, mediocrity of beauty, mediocrity of intellectual capacities - we could almost say nothingness."

There you have one that seems to be one of your favorite authors: Gobineau. I will keep posting the same responses all the time, since you seem to ignore them all the time as well. By the way, as a Californian that you seem to be, to claim that whites do not live side by side with browns and blacks, using your own terminology, in the US and California, is most funny. Go on, I am having a good time. Veritas et Severitas 20:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that I am quite amused by these pictures. I was going to be facetious and insult the pathetic nature of the website (which, BTW, it is inevitable that anyone with common sense would do). Anyhow, just a logical observation/comment about the pictures of the white people you show. Why *these* pictures - why not some kind of population average? Or, better yet, choose a selection of white leaders that white people have historically chosen (you can't tell me that neither Hitler nor Stalin were white - so why discriminate against them. This would seem to be especially immoral and subversive given the phenonenal contributions that they made to the furtherance of whites. What amount famous white imperialists? Why do we choose individuals who are not famous. By the admition of white populations, it must surely be the case that whites would want to be represented by such individuals (their policies, histories, actions, beliefs are inherently racist - just like their political leaders!).

Why these pictures, I am under the impression that they create a false positive impression of the white race. --Betterfaith.

Yes Hitler and Stalin are considered white, but so are considered a few hundreds of millions of people. Unfortunately the term white has been hijacked in such a way by extremists that I cannot understand how people can still use it to classify themselves. There are a lot of people who would be considered white that are ashamed of the term. I am from Europe, and I can tell you that this term is increasingly being used down here almost exclusively in Neo-Nazi circles. But we are here dealing with an article that is supposed to be about a kind of people and some of us are trying to make the best of it, so that at least the terms European or Western Civilization are not hijacked as well by the same people. Veritas et Severitas 20:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

User:LSLM insists on putting material about the origin of people from British Isles. I think, in his own mind, this is relevant. However it isnt. The text says "sometimes excluding people from the Balkans, and Mediterranean basin." It means present or near present by basin (hundreds of years). Not thousands of years ago. So even if people from British Isles descend from Med or not, this doesnt mean they are same with CURRENT med. people. Since some or most of Med people today may have descended from elsewhere in the past.

See my comments below and get some basic education on ancestry, genetics and relationships among present populations.Veritas et Severitas 19:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

For ex, According to LSLM's logic, black people shouldnt be considered black because all humans descend from Africa.

So there is a time factor here which makes the addition of text about British origins irrelevant in the context of Australia section. Lukas19 21:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

My another "American-Canadian" friend Lukas, you seem the one very interested in getting rid of it all the time. Some of it was pasted by another user not me. It is in response to the Mediterranean comment, that "some" people what to introduce so much, and people are not even asking for proper sources: As always, aunt Annie. I know that some times all of you come up here. Still, if Mediterranean is mentioned by "some" people, the clarification is perfect and more sourced than the previous comments. I am sure that you can read.

What an excellent page this is for a sociological study about "some" Americans and others in internet. I have been following them for some time and where do they come from? Some people would say "mostly Germany" as most people would associate "some" people with Germans. Well, no, not a single German have I been able to spot. Surprise, surprise. All of them seem to come from the US. Some of them from Canada, and one or two also from Australia. Most interesting. Veritas et Severitas 21:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

1) I'm not your friend.

2) I'm not American.

3) I'm not Canadian.

4) This is not a discussion board. Do not spam with answers irrelevant to the article. Lukas19 05:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You are free not to consider me your friend, but I do consider you my friend. Veritas et Severitas 18:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• For ex, According to LSLM's logic, black people shouldnt be considered black because all humans descend from Africa.

This is gibberish, it makes no sense. Surely Black people are considered Black due to the colour of their skin, what on earth has it got to do with the African origins of our species? Bugger all as far as I can see. However I agree with Lukas, the origins of British people are not relevant to this article. Indeed none of the genetic data are really relevant, one cannot be genetically "White" any more than one can be genetically "British" or genetically "Norwegian". The thing is that racists like Lukas think that genetics support their barmy ideas, while anti-racists like LSLM think that genetics prove racism is nonsense (which I agree with), but it means that they are both guilty of giving too much prominence to a subjects that is at best marginal to the article. Lukas especially has a habit of looking through research papers that he clearly doesn't understand and using them in articles to try to support his opinion when the actual articles themselves do nothing of the sort. Whichever way one looks at it, being White is about being accepted as White by a community, and not necessarily about descent or origins, and certainly has nothing to do with genetics. If White is synonymous with some European ancestry, then most African Americans are White, if White is synonymous with an exclusive European ancestry, then many White Americans are not White: As to African Americans, it stated that this group has an estimated white admixture of 10% to 20%, while many whites also have some degree of non-White admixture.[22] The report stated "In a survey of college students who self-identified as “white” in a northeastern U.S. university, ∼30% were estimated to have less than 90% European ancestry." Whiteness is social and not genetic:

The problem came when Mr. Bennett died. His will left all to his beloved wife, Louetta. But his relatives contested the man’s will on the grounds that their long and fruitful marriage had been illegal all along, because Louetta had started life as a Black baby. In a terse opinion, Bennett v. Bennett,1940 South Carolina, (most of which is the above summary), South Carolina Supreme Court Justices Milledge L. Bonham, D. Gordon Baker, E. L. Fishburne, Taylor H. Stukes, and L. D. Lide ruled that over her lifetime, Louetta had become irrevocably White, and they dismissed the will contestation unanimously.[3]

This may be worthy of inclusion in the article, as it shows that perceptions of "White" are really social. LSLM also seems to have some sort of POV to push, particularly regarding his insistence that British people are descended from an Iberian refuge, and have a particularly close affinity to Spanish people. Neither Oppenheimer nor Sykes make this claim, they do make claims in support of

Nordicism apparently, from his continual insistence that northern Europeans are different from southern Europeans) European mtDNA and Y chromosome data clearly point to an east-west cline in Europe rather than a north south cline, and there is little evidence of large scale immigration into southern Europe that did not affect northern Europe, this is not to say that none occured, but it is evident that it has not dramatically affected the population. Neolithic expansion seems to have been a combination of cultural diffusion and some small scale population movements, but there is clear evidence of a neolithic (that is Near Eastern) component to the British population, so what small scale intrusion that did occur does seem to have reached the British Isles. There is little evidence of any sort of large scale migration to any part of Europe after the neolithic. Alun

06:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As to the genetic section I agree too. But try and get rid of it and make statements like those that can be inferred from those studies and we will see how long they will last or not be accompanied by a (citation needed)Veritas et Severitas 18:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• By far the majority of male gene types in the British Isles derive from Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal), ranging from a low of 59% in Fakenham, Norfolk to highs of 96% in Llangefni, north Wales and 93% Castlerea, Ireland.

This is irrelevant. I was not claiming that western Europeans are not mainly descended from the south western European refuge (this applies equally to German people and Scandinavian people as it does to British people, look at the haplogroup maps, 40% of German and 30% of Norwegian Y chromosomes are derived from this refuge (incidentally this refuge was not exclusively Iberian) but when he refers to Iberian in your quote he is not talking about the south western Ice Age Refuge, he is talking about all haplogroups derived from this region over several millenia, including those of the neolithic expansion that brought Near Eastern haplogroups with them, these also entered Britain by way of the Iberian peninsula, but these did not penetrate into the Basque Country as they did Britain and Spain), if you had read what I wrote I was stating that eastern England is not part of the long term cultural continuity of the Atlantic facade. That is clear, they are not part of the Celt-Iberian Atlantic cultural association that Cunliffe believes existed for millenia. This is where I think you are pushing a POV, because you have claimed that there is a long standing special relationship between Britain and Spain, and this is not stated in either of the sources. What is stated in the sources is that there was a long standing reationship between the peoples of the Atlantic facade of Europe, that is the peopes of the Atlantic coasts of Spain, France, Atlantic Britain and of the island of Ireland, this did not extend to the eastern coast, ie North Sea Britain. You are clearly confusing the cultural association of the Atlantic facade with the completelly different event of the human expansion out of the Ice Age Refuge. The cultural connection is not between Britain and Spain, it is between the peoples of the Atlantic facade of Europe and does not extend to eastern Britain. Alun 19:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I do not interpret anything. I always try and avoid that because that is one of the biggest problems in this place. I just make quotes from authors. You have read them above. The books are about The Origins of the British. When other people write so extensive books about the origins of the Germans, or whatever, I will gladly comment on that too. Veritas et Severitas 19:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This is evasion, it does not address what I said. These books are indeed about the origins of the British, so just why are they relevant to this article? This article is not about the origins of the British. Alun 19:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have already said that I agree with you. This is not relevant in this article, unless some people need a response. Do you think that it is relevant here to speak about Nazis and Gobineau? Of course not, but if some people want to push some point of view they will obtain a response. Veritas et Severitas 20:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. I do know that this article is not the place to have an argument. The talk page is the place to thrash any problems out, and to decide on what goes into the article. You should not place information in the article because you think other information in the article "deserves a response", you should question the relevance of that information here on the talk page. As to the information in Oppenheimer's book, it is quite clear that many of the haplotype cluster founding events derive from the paleolithic and neolithic, when the North Sea did not exist, these events occured on the plain that would later become the North Sea. It is completelly incorrect to claim that Oppenheimer does not show that many of the haplotype clusters form founding events that are shared by modern British and other North Sea region populations. Oppenheimer's book is about the origins of the British, but how could he write about this without including the origins of other European people? Well he couldn't, and indeed he doesn't. If you want to claim that Oppenheimer shows that western Europeans are mainly descended from populations derived from the western Ice Age refuge, then you should also include the information, which is given in Oppenheimer's book, that this also applies to other north western European peoples, including Norwegians, Belgians, Netherlanders, Danes, coastal Germans etc. This info is available in this book, you appear to be claiming that Oppenheimer does not include it, which indicates to me that you may not actually have read the book. Alun 14:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not read the book? Well I provide quotes and not opinions. I do not disagree with what you say though, but I just try to address specific issues(in this case the opinions of "some" people in some Anglo-Celtic countries). It is true that this population group, using genetic terminology, is the most common is Western Europe, but it is also true that it is especially common in the British Isles and in the Iberian peninsula. If people from other places came with strange opinions and if I had verifiable information to reveal how ridiculous they were, I would do the same, and that is my opinion, you do not have to agree with it. But this makes no sense anymore. This is not an issue right now. Anyway, as to how to contribute, I respect your opinion but I have my own. Veritas et Severitas 18:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I must say I do respect your contributions, even if I have some problems with your editing style, I think you are a good faith contributor who contributes well to debates about genetics and the origins of human populations. I think we agree on the important issues. Cheers. Alun 18:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at the history of the article. Well, just a small detail, but interesting how these "some" people go at it all the time. Dark says that most white people do not have dark hair. So, most white people are supposed to be blond or have red hair. Comments please. Let us see if with a little patience we can unconver all these people once and for all. Veritas et Severitas

I said there wasn't sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim that whites have mostly dark hair, because the Hair Color Map does not give the population of people included in each percentage block and does not account for current indigenous European settling to different parts of Europe. Furthermore, the European diaspora in the US, Canada, South Africa and Australia are mostly the light-haired Europeans, making the actual numbers of light-haired people higher than the map suggests.--^DarkTea 02:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• the Hair Color Map does not give the population of people included in each percentage block

Look at the map, the areas with more than 50% light coloured hair are not very highly populated, this area includes Scandinavia, and some big cities, like St Petersberg and some northern British cities, but it's population is very small compared to the rest of Europe, you might call it 30-40 million people as a rough estimate (50 million if you want to push it), but this means that the rest of Europe, about 95% has a majority of people with dark hair, and large parts of western Europe and the Balkans have less than 20% of the people with light coloured hair. Only a tiny part of Europe, both by population and by geography has a majority of people with light coloured hair. Alun 18:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Furthermore, the European diaspora in the US, Canada, South Africa and Australia are mostly the light-haired Europeans,

Is this a fact or an opinion? I suspect an opinion. As far as I can tell from the

European American article, the two biggest European groups to settle the USA are Irish (15%) and German (23.3%), neither of which group has a majority of light haired people according to the hair colour map presented in this article (both have 20-49% light coloured hair). In Canada it is less apparent, but the two largest groups are English and French (excluding Canadians who identify as Canadian), and only a part of England has a greater than 50% light hair colour, while most of France has less than 20% light hair colour. In South Africa the white population are generally descended from people from the Netherlands or from the UK, only the northern part of Great Britain has a majority of people with light coloured hair from these two places, and according to Demographics of South Africa about 60% of White South Africans speak Africaans and about 40% English at home, indicating a majority of people descended from people from an area of Europe with less than 50% light coloured hair. Likewise there is no reason to assume that White Australians display any greater tendency to have light coloured hair than do other British groups (74% of all Australians are described as Anglo-Celtic in Demographics of Australia). So unless you are claiming some sort of selection process whereby only people with a light hair colour were allowed to settle in these regions, I can see no reason to accept this claim. Alun

18:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Besides, stop speaking of those places all the time as if it was the cradle of the "white" race. Those places are highly multiracial and badly represent the majority of people who are considered white, although some of them (like you) so badly want to. The fact that you speak of South Africa as a significant place or representative place of white population is ludicrous enough and quite interesting in relation to your view of the world. Veritas et Severitas 16:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Lukas has introduced one new picture that was proposed by Wobble, but replacing the Frenchman picture. I think he could have left the Frechman as well, but I think he makes a point: Better to introduce known personalities. I will introduce another that is very interesting: The President of the European Union Comission. The closest thing to a President that the European Union has.Veritas et Severitas 02:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe one of the reasons as to why West Asians and North Africans are considered `white' in the U.S. Census and nowhere else in the Western world is based on the fact that America has a pro-Israel government and for their own contentious claims want to include Israelis as white!! Israel even stakes a claim in the Eurovision Song Contest even though it is not even a part of Europe!! It doesn't look good to state ``White means native Europeans and Israelis' now does it!!??

Again, read comments above: Those people are as white are any white, according to physical anthropology and censuses like the US. Your auntie or mine or theirs do not count. But you are right, some people want to use a "racial" term according to different political agendas. thisw is the biggest problem of this article.

And if some people here mean by white what it literally means, like the comment in the Australian section (a white piece of paper is white), then we should start making up a new term, because there are certainly no white people in the world. Even the picture of the pale American woman. Just, look at her shirt, that is white!, certainly not her skin. Speaking of a term that has been appropriated while being a big lie would be stuff for a long discussion though. Veritas et Severitas 16:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Britons - reply to Lukas

Many britons do descend from the med Lukas, but the med has not changed genetically much since the last people left the northern spain to go to the british isles in the neolithic, espcecially northern spain and southwestern france.

Perhaps we should add this and mention the specific region of the med basin.

Lukas the point is relevant as the Basques have changed genetically very little and avoided any neolithic input (middle eastern which i think is what you are trying to say makes med people non white). The basques are not considered white however, and they are anthroplogically similar to the welsh who actually have slightly more neolithic than the basques).

Basically we need to mention that britons and irish people are gnetically similar to eh basques on both male and female chromosomes and descend from that region predominantly aswell as keeping the anthroplogical cites of a med appearance in parts of the British isles in order to show the hippocracy of the term white and its fallacy and also to not give off stereotypes about ethnicity that are mentioned in the australian sections (i.e pasty celtic or anglo saxon appearance is what aussies consider white ). That is a very inaccurate stereotype and if we are going to include it in their opinion of white pople we need to let users no that this stereotype is false and present then with real scientific evidence using anthroplogy and genetics. --Globe01 18:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Globe. The point is that "some" users here have been implying that only true "Nordics" are white and that "Mediterraneans" are not "white" according to their uncles and aunts, and it is so implied in the Australian section. So, the clarification is more than necessary, especially since the people making these claims come from the so-called Anglo-Celtic countries and if they are themselves Anglo-Celts they are likely to be themselves mainly of south western European ancestry without even knowing it. And it is very important because these "some" people think themselves mainly of "Nordic" or north western European ancestry and that is what they are implying all the time with their comments. Well, even if they were, so what? But then, according to Oppenheimer only about 30% of people in England are of north-western European origins, while in the rest of the Isles this proportion is much smaller. He clearly claims that the rest are overwhelmingly of Iberian origins. And Sykes comes to similar conclusions, only he dates the main migrations to the Isles much more recently than Oppenheimer. Then, how do they know? Well, comparing the genetic fingerprint of modern-day Britons and modern-day Iberians, of course, which are very similar, in some cases, as you said, extremely similar. And Iberians are West Mediterraneans, with the Basques having conserved their genetic fingerprint specially unchanged but being, as Oppenheimer also states in his book, a population representative of South Western Europe, that is Iberia (Portugal and Spain). So, "some" people with a clear Nordicist bias in this article from the very beginning, coming from the US, Canada and Australia, just need some basic education on this issue. If people want to insist I can provide exact quotes from the books just published and insert them in the body of the article. There are plenty of them of relevance here. Veritas et Severitas 20:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This article belongs in the Uncyclopedia. This article is sadly obvious. Who, but racist types, think about this kind of thing? Someone has a 'White Emperialist' obsession.

THOSE WHO ARE PUSHING THE IDEA THAT MIDDLE EASTERNERS, INDIANS AND NORTH AFRICANS ARE `WHITE', THEN PLEASE REVERT YOUR DISCUSSUIONS TO THE

Add this image of Indian polititian Omar Abdullah on the main page since he is an Aryan and looks `whiter' than José Manuel Barroso!!!

http://164.100.24.208/ls/lsmember/13biodata/2.jpg

Once again this happens here all the time because people insist on deleting crucial information. Then we have these responses: I introduced physical anthropologists and how they classified those people as white in the 20th century or how in the US census they are considered white. But one user thought it was not necessary to speak about it so much and deleted it, leaving a short comment. Nothing new. Veritas et Severitas 18:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

So southern Europeans are White people to? Many of them have skin complexion isn't as pale as the Nordic and Celtic people? How can they be Whites?

Why should they be white? why should anyone be white?. Have you really ever seen a person that is white? All people are some sort of brown, sometimes even pinkish, but never white. But some people like to call themselves "white", put it in official documents, associate with Western Culture and with Europeans and others. To call people "white" in itself is a big lie and the result of Eurocentrism, but here we are.See also my response on the bottom. Veritas et Severitas 13:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have expressed above the interesting American bias in this article by "some" users, especially at the beginning and how they continue to go at it with a clear Nordicist bias and believing themselves almost the only whites in the world or equating White = "Nordic" (Should we say Aryan?) (Nazism was based on Nordicism for those who do not know). I will continue my own private project here highlighting these types of contributions and the place of origins of these users. It seems that after World War II Americans made a great effort to "de-nazify" Germany and they forgot their own backyard, without realizing how contaminated it was, while these "some" users seem to be oblivious of what people with these ideas in Europe often think about the Americans themselves. It can also serve to analyze the strange and twisted approach to "race" by these people, who seem to want to impose it as a world view.

See the following users' latest contributions and the history of the article and their countries of Origin. I will be posting them one by one from now on:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GrandpaDoc (This guy removed images of Nacy Pelosi and Jose Manuel Barroso).

2.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Common_Sense7 (This guy removed Germany, from the US section that said that once they were not considered white along with other Europeans and the Nancy Pelosi picture. Does his common sense represents American common sense?

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Uncle_G (Just look at this user and his comments about a new race): brown people. Look at the history of the article and statements like: all Mexicans are considered brown. (This place is a sociological gold mine).

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dark_Tichondrias (This user said that Hitler was a good example for the pictures and that stormfronters would be good contributors here and agree that all these positions represent Americans. she also fails to grasp that this article is not about the Americans. There is an article called White Americans for that purpose).

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ju66l3r (this user insits on deleteing the fact that white people are not literally "white") Just look at his contributions here and in brown people.

Veritas et Severitas 16:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

In defense of my American compatriots, their edits reflect common understanding in the US. Like I said before, Hispanics are often not considered white because they form a separate political entity. The removal of Mr. Barroso makes a lot of sense in the US standpoint. Uncle G's contribution was brilliant; I can't believe the brown race didn't already have its rightful place on wikipedia. You would be surprised how many Mexican Americans try to force other people to acknowledge that they are the brown race, consisting of a singular color and unanimous Mestizo ancestry. Other Americans consider Mexican Americans to be their own race, since their white racial purity has become indiscernably tainted with the Indian, making their race default to not white by hypodescent even if they look it. I recall British islanders being the first whites whereas all other white Americans were gradually accepted as time progressed.--^DarkTea 20:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As promised Dark T., to the same arguments that you always repeat, you will get always the same response:

Here you have again what "some" people think of Americans:

http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2007/01/

If you cannot open it, I have cut and posted this part:

U.S. is definitely Judeo-Saxon in every sense: culturally, socially, and morally. The old-money W.A.S.P.s and Ashkenazi Jews are also increasingly intermarrying one another, so within a few generations, distinctions may be further blurred than at present.

As the great German intellectual Werner Sombart said: “Americanism is to a great extent distilled Judaism.”

You can also check what "some" Europeans think about Americans in Anti-Americanism.

If you are too lazy to read I will help you cutting and pasting:

Racialism

In the middle of the nineteenth century, the racialist theories of Arthur de Gobineau and others spread through Europe. The presence of blacks and "lower quality" immigrant groups made racialist thinkers discount the potential of the United States. The infinite mixing of America would lead to the ultimate degeneracy. Gobineau said that America was creating "greatest mediocrity in all fields: mediocrity of physical strength, mediocrity of beauty, mediocrity of intellectual capacities - we could almost say nothingness."

There you have one that seems to be one of your favorite authors: Gobineau. I do not need to mention what a racist charlatan this Gobineau was, but following your own arguments, why should any Americans be considered "white" at all, even if they look ¨white¨?Veritas et Severitas 20:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Americans apply different standards to people from south of the border. Many old stock white Americans have a drop of the Indian in their blood, but it's from the United States Indian. Indian blood from the United States Indian is often cherished and respected, since it gives the feeling being a legitimate American. In contrast, Indian blood from south of the border is viewed as foreign and is less tolerated. As a result, Americans apply different unwritten rules to people with ancestry from south of the border.--^DarkTea 21:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Then again, why should the rest of the world, and this is a world article, not an American article, consider Americans white at all, following your own premises. Veritas et Severitas 21:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

American idiosyncrasies in its diagnosis of the racial type do not globalize as the rule of thumb for this article. The fact that many white Americans with a drop US-Indian ancestry consider themselves white whereas Hispanics are frequently viewed as not white may be hypocrisy, but it represents the American viewpoint. Americans are very complex in said issue and never burden themselves with an overly critical analysis of their beliefs. Other people should regard white Americans as white simply because it is the American understanding.--^DarkTea 22:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, not so much the people I mentioned before or your own rationale. Anyway, you are proposing a double standard, one for the Americans and one for others. That is not just neither acceptable nor reasonable. Veritas et Severitas 22:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I am proposing a single standard. Where allotted, this article should have what Americans think and in the section for what others think, they can have their standards.--^DarkTea

I think what you propose is mainly an extremist and marginal point of view, in the same way as I would consider it an extremist and marginal point of view to speak of Americans according to the fascist site above or to Gobineau. I think that our positions are already clear. Veritas et Severitas 03:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Are Arabs and ethnic Jews White people? Surely a lot of them have light hair and skin complexion as fair as the Europeans, for example, Paul Newman and Omar Sharif. --Fantastic4boy 06:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there are no people that are really "white". I have already said it: take a white piece of paper or a white shirt and compare it with anyone. No none is literally "white". We are all some sort of brown, some people may even look pinkish or even reddish, but certainly never "white". It is a Eurocentric term and a misnomer. But physical anthropologists and some countries that like to classify people in races say that they are "white". This reminds me of one case that took place in South Africa during Apartheid and was commented in the news: One judge was convicting a prisoner and referred to him as black, the person said that he did not like to be called black, then the judge said: why don't you like to call yourself black if you are black? The prisoner responded: why do you like to call yourself white if you are "pink"? Veritas et Severitas 13:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Although fairness in coloration may be associated with the white race, the white race is more than skin deep. Fairness is by no means an exclusive trait of whites as it is seen in Chinese and related peoples. Fairness is an attribute of whites, but not the determiner. Historically, whites were a racially pure group whose appearence could be readily distinguished, but the true Mediterraneans in southern Europe miscegentated with Arabic peoples. This formed the continuum in physical type which was not already extant. Today, the peoples in Southern Europe who are incorrectly called "Mediterraneans" are actually a mixed breed with Arabic racial elements taking predominance over white elements. To say that some Arabs look white or Jews for that matter, is to say that black Africans and American Indians look white because a lot of them have miscegenated and now form a continuum in appearence. The answer to your question is no; they are not whites. This is all explained here: [http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr1.htm white people] or white people (different hosts needed to verify accuracy by corroboration).--^DarkTea 06:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Added and reverted statement: The term white is a misnomer. Most white people are some kind of brown shade, some may even look pinkish or reddish, but none of them looks literally white. The term is the result of a eurocentric view of race.

First, this statement is better and more accurately stated within the entire rest of the article. The history of the term section describes the source in ancient Greek/Latin for example. To annotate this as simply a "eurocentric view of race" is not established by what is provided and lacks any sourcing. Just an unnecessary addition, but if it's truly warranted, it should be in the section discussing physical traits of White people, like the section called "Light skin", and not in the lead (particularly not the first sentence of the article as it's not useful in introducing the term "White people". ju66l3r 19:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not agree. It is a fact and the article should start indicating this discrepancy. I am putting it back. Veritas et Severitas 19:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's a fact then it should be sourced. I have taken the time to explain why it should not start the article and given you a link to what a good

WP:LEAD includes. The least you can do is explain why you do not agree with moving it to "Light skin" or sourcing it or how it fits the lead paragraph or how the "fact" is not already included better and more accurately in the rest of the article. What is the point of discussing it here if you're just going to put it back anyways? ju66l3r

19:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have already said it: :Do not agree. It is a fact and the article should start indicating this discrepancy. I am putting it back. Veritas et Severitas 19:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No need to copy and paste comments. That is not conducive or

civil. I have modififed your addition to better fit the location in the article where it should be discussed and be more explicit. See if it's agreeable. ju66l3r

19:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

As said, due to the fact that it is an important discrepancy with the term itself, it should be at the start of the article. But just to avoid an edit war, I will wait for other users to comment on the best position for this important fact and discrepancy between "white" to refer to people and the real color "white", or the fact that white people are in fact some shade of brown or even may look like other colors like pinkish or reddish but certainly not white, not even albinos. Veritas et Severitas 19:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I am putting it back though. After seeing your attitude if the Brown People particle, I think that your arguments are not convincing,. Veritas et Severitas 20:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing purely to make a

WP:POINT is not accepted at Wikipedia. ju66l3r

21:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You have violated the 3 revert rule, my friend, while you seem to have similar problems with your own point of view in the Brown people article. Veritas et Severitas 22:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest trying to compromise here. This is not exactly a difficult issue. Veritas, you do actually have a responsibility to reference your claims as per

reliable sources for certain claims. When it comes to wikipedia it's all very well to introduce a POV, but it needs to be verified. Try to remember that the criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. If you want to make a claim about what constitutes a white person, then I would suggest you can start by claiming that, at least form a biological perspective, whiteness is a lack of pigmentation, that is White people have lost the pigmentation their ancestors had. This loss of pigmentation is though to be due an adaptive response to lack of daylight and the need to generate vitamin D, but that the term is usually synonymous with European ancestry rather than actual skin colour. You can expand upon this by stating that in southern Europe, where there is somewhat greater UV intensity, people generally have a slightly darker skin colour, but are still generally considered White due to their European origins, this highlights the fact that "Whiteness" is a social construct and has nothing to do with the amount of de-melanisation that has taken place. Indeed skin colour is dependent on environmental factors as well as biology (age, exposure of skin to sunlight etc.), and women have lighter skin than men in all communities. I would point out that the section on skin colour covers this really rather well, I don't really see why it needs to be in the lead section, unless we want to include a reference to the fact that the skin colour of White people can actually be quite varied depending upon context and environmental factors. I mean that there are obviously people with pale skin who are not considered White, especially people from certain parts of the Americas and Asia, whereas there are people with relatively speaking dark skin colour who often are considered white because they are Europeans, such as people from Georgia or the Caucasus. Indeed according to a paper I rcently read, in the USA people of Middle Eastern origin are considered White. I don't know if this is true, and I actually don't care, it's still verifiable and it's from a peer reviewed journal, so I think it constitutes a reliable source, so there's no reason why it should not be included in the article.

The term "White" in the UK never considered Asian Indians, Middle Eastern, and North Africans, but until recently people from India were considered "Whites" by the official US racial classification, and Middle Easterners still are. There are large variations in racial taxonomy across countries. Some taxonomies emphasize ancestry (e.g., US), others ethnicity (UK and Canada), and still others skin color (Brazil). Strictly speaking, these taxonomies, although they overlap in some cases, are not identical.[5]

Alun 06:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have protected the page due to edit-warring on both sides. Please discuss changes to the article first before editing, not just for the sake of the article, but for the sake of everyone sanity, including admins who have to constantly see accusations (factual or not) of misconduct on both sides. In short, just discuss first before editing. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: The essence of this text is worth including in the lead, but it makes a horrible first sentence. So why not tweak it and put it second. Disputed version:

The term white is a misnomer. Most white people are some kind of brown shade, some may even look pinkish or reddish, but none of them looks literally white. The term is the result of a eurocentric view of race.

Suggested replacement.

Taken literally, the term white is a

color metaphor for race, one that emerged from a racialized, European cultural context

.

--Carwil 23:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, this is exactly what I did here and was ignored and reverted. I could agree to your version (not as the first sentence in the article of course) since it's similar to what I did. ju66l3r 00:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Some people does have white skin tho. It looks pinkish due to blood vessels...Lukas19 05:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, Lukas, white people never refers specifically to such people (though the word "white" does sometimes). If I insert "nearly all" into the above, do we have consensus?

Taken literally, the term white is a

color metaphor for race, one that emerged from a racialized, European cultural context

.

--Carwil 15:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

So taken literally, not all white people are shades of brown unless you are color blind. There are those that are pinkish or reddish. But they are not pinkish brown, they are pinkish WHITE. And also there are no such color as brown. It is somewhere between orange-yellow. So, if you are going to talk about misnomer, add that as well. And some people, especially red heads do actually look white, since there are no other color that can describe them better. Actually let's talk about electromagnetic radiation as well here. Let's say there are no colors out there, it's just our perception of waves that makes us see what we think we see. Because as we all know, waves are associated with hearing while colors are associated with sight. So there is some ambiguity there as well. Lukas19 19:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"The word white is not used in the sense of the color". This is also a

color metaphors for race would be electromagnatic radiation metaphors for race. Lukas19

19:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

1) Yes it's an objection in case someone tries to make an edit such as this: [6]

2)Color comment is not a joke and see the link yourself please. Also see white.

If it's not a joke then it's merely wrong. This is one of the most absurd arguments in support of a POV I have ever seen. Are you saying that when the term White to describe people was first introduced, it was done so by people who only intended it to be used for those people that had a complete depigmentation of their skin, and who actually had a skin colour that perfectly reflected all of the visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum? And how did they know? Because this is nonsense Lukie boy and you cannot support it with a citation. This term is a social term that is only used to distinguish social groups, some people are accepted as white even if they have a relatively dark skin colour, some are not accepted as white even if they have a very pale skin colour. You may not like this fact, but it's true and can be cited, just because your POV is that only Nordic types can be "white", it doesn't follow that this reflects a global, or even a generally accepted POV. Try to keep your minority opinion out of encyclopaedia articles, they do not represent the mainstream. This is not a racial classification (which are also all social constructs). Anyway there is no such thing as white skin, you are not talking about white skin at all, you are talking about

translucent skin, it's the adipose tissue below that makes it look white (that's fat cells to you), and as you say the blood gives it the additional pinkish look. So to be perfectly accurate there is no such thing as white skin, there is only brown skin and translucent skin. So put that in your pipe and smoke it. If you want to talk about "colours", then they form a continuum of change, it's a spectrum, colours are only certain ranges along this spectrum. See Electromagnetic spectrum. Alun

07:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

When did I say "when the term White to describe people was first introduced, it was done so by people who only intended it to be used for those people that had a complete depigmentation of their skin, and who actually had a skin colour that perfectly reflected all of the visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum"?Lukas19 15:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

When did I say...

What? I asked you a question, I did not claim that you said this. To quote you "can you read?" So can you answer the question I asked you? Alun 16:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So what was "one of the most absurd arguments in support of a POV" you "have ever seen"? The fact that I said that white is not a color? If truth is your understanding of absurd, then that's your problem.

What is absurd is that White is in fact a colour. When we apply it to people, or to objects it is a colour. I have never heared anyone call a white chair anything other than white. Anyway your argument is still wrong. Something is white because it reflects all colours of the electromagnetic spectrum. Something is Yellow because it reflects only the blue and green parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. Plants are green because they absord in the red and blue parts of the spectrum to photosynthesise. If you are going to claim that white is not a colour, then you must claim that yellow is not a colour. This argument is what we call reductio ad absurdum. The truth is that white is a colour, and that when it is applied to humans it is not true to say that any humans are white. Even if the pinkness is due to blood vessels it is irrelevant, it is the colour of the person that we see, and not the colour of the skin. We do not see the skin in isolation. Alun 18:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As explained and proven by the link, white is not a color. So to say that a paper is colored white is a misnomer because a) it's not white light b) technically white is not a color. This is a very common misnomer. And the point of this whole debate was to demonstrate how common misnomers are. So it's redundant to add such a thing to the article, since almost anything is a misnomer, as also suggested by the wiki article misnomer. Hence it is silly to include "this is misnomer, that is misnomer" in allmost or perhaps all articles. And white and yellow are apples and oranges. You can only compare white with black. Lukas19 00:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

And the fact that I asked when I said that implies I didnt say any such thing. Duh! Lukas19 16:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I would answer this if it made any sense, but it seems not to be written in any form of comprehensible English. What does it mean? It's gibberish.

Here is the question that you seem not to be able see. Are you saying that when the term White to describe people was first introduced, it was done so by people who only intended it to be used for those people that had a complete depigmentation of their skin, and who actually had a skin colour that perfectly reflected all of the visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum?

Alun 18:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I asked "When did I say ......?". If I had said something which implied what you are asking now (and asked before), why would I ask "When did I say ......"? So the answer of your question is no. Lukas19 00:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Again you seem to be communicating in some sort of

Pigin Engliah. This is gibberish. How can anyone respond to comments that are so vague? I asked you a clear question. You then claimed that I had accused you of making a comment. I had not, I had asked you a question. This is very simple, I fail to see why you cannot understand this. You have responded very strangely, I don't understand a word of what you have written. it is gibberish. Is it merely an attempt to avoid actually engaging in debate? I suspect so. Alun

06:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

3)Just like we use race in quotes, you have to use color in quotes now, since, hopefully, you now know that white isnt a color. So the category is also "color" based because "color" is part of the equation. While we are not discussing people who literally appear white, we are discussing people who ALSO look "white". So the lead sentence is misleading, suggesting that there is no link between "color" and this category while there is. And what's literally white anyway? Sheet? It certainly looks different than sun light. LUKAS19

Go and check, white is a colour. Saying white is not a colour because it is not a Primary color is just plain wrong. It is like saying yellow is not a colour because it is a mixture of red and green. Alun 07:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

In physics, white isnt called white color but is called white light. Color is what happens when you pass white light through prism. The colors in physics can be found in color page, under "The colors of the visible light spectrum". And: "Technically speaking, white is not a color at all, but rather the combination of all the colors of the visible light spectrum." [7] This is very basic and simple info at physics. If you dont know what you are talking about, dont create a pollution in this discussion page.LUKAS19

So? This is not about physics. Again, are you claiming that this term "White people" was devised with a scientific definition of White in mind? It is an absurd observation. Anyway this is clearly an incorrect statement. Light can be white and it can be blue, but a piece of paper can be white or blue, a piece of paper is not "light", but it can still be white. Alun 16:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Light can be blue? No shit. That's why I said white light. White people was devised because white was the most appropriate "color" to choose from rather than pink or red.LUKAS19

• White people was devised because white was the most appropriate "color" to choose from

You just said white wasn't a colour. Make up your mind. Alun 18:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hence the quotes. Duh! Lukas19 00:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

And as you can see piece of paper cant be white since it is not white light. Almost nothing can be white hence it is silly to say "noone is literally white". Or we can say "noone is literally white as noone is the color of white light." if you want to add this sort of thing to the article. Lukas19 16:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• piece of paper cant be white

But it can be white, it just can't be white light. It can be white in colour, that is it can reflect all visible wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum, this makes it white in colour. Come on, I don't know if you are trying to be clever, or if you are trying not to appear stupid. Whichever you clearly are tying yourself up in knots here. And it's all irrelevant because the physics of this is totally bloody irrelevant, this is not about physics but about perception. Try to understand. Everyone knows what the colour white is. Everyone knows that no human people are white, ever. Some people have a depigmented skin, but it's never white, even a child knows this. Alun 18:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A piece of paper can be white, on a unscientific level and as a misnomer. Again, this whole debate was to demonstrate how common misnomers are. And if science is irrelevant and this color thing is all about perception, some people *ARE* white because that is the most appropriate color, similar to the fact that a piece of paper is white because that is, again, the most appropriate color to be associated with the paper. On an human level (relative to other people), again, europeans *ARE* white. Lukas19 00:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Or to paraphrase Mel Brooks "pure frontier gibberish". A piece of paper can be white on an unscientific level. So what? his is not an article about science. You are avoiding the main points. White is a colour. You can believe what you like, but you are still wrong. How can someone be "relatively white", is that like "relatively blue". It's nonsense. Something is white or it is not. You have claimed above that Northern Europeans are absolutely white (Some people does (sic) have white skin tho (sic). Now you are claiming they are "relatively white". This is exactly what LSLM was saying. That no human being is ever actually white, and therefore it is a misnomer You now appear to be agreeing with this comment, relatively white is not the same as actually white, therefore you are supporting LSLM when he says that no human beings are actually white. Thanks for changing your position. Alun 06:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In science, study of color primarily falls under physics tho Some others may also study it, like doctors for eye related stuff. Hence to say that white is a color or say "The word white is not used in the sense of the color" is a misnomer itself.Lukas19 15:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• In science, study of color primarily falls under physics

This article is not about the study of colour. It is about how the colour White is used by society about people.Alun 16:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No shit. Hence, given the unscientific definition of society about what is white, it is not a misnomer to call some people white. Lukas19 16:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No, no shit. Shit is brown, though I'm sure you can concoct some cock and bull about how it smells of roses if it comes from Nordic people. Alun 18:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

4)As you can see in the skin color map, lightest people are in Europe, with the exception of albinism. So the term is not a misnomer in relativistic sense. And yeah, albinism is an exception. You can also find exceptions to the theory of relativity but it is still quite solid. Lukas19 20:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Lightest people are in Europe. So what? Do you have a point? There are also people in Europe who do not have a complete depigmentation of their skin, even in northern Europe. It is incorrect to use these sorts of maps to imply that somehow all people in northern Europe are somehow completely depigmente, because this is tosh. In addition, skin pigmentation varies with age, sunlight exposure and by gender and is not uniform anywhere. Alun 07:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is White is the most suitable "color" to be given to Europeans, especially Northern Europeans. The alternatives like brown or pink or red are WORSE. Pinkish White is more correct than Whitish Pink. Hence "The term is" NOT ONLY "the result of a eurocentric view of race". There is a relationship with how Europeans look and why white is used for us.

• The point is White is the most suitable "color" to be given to Europeans

Is it? This is just an opinion surely. Alun 16:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Then it is an opinion to say that "most white people are shades of brown". Lukas19 16:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No this is a fact. It is an opinion to claim that white is "the most suitable colour", because suitability is by definition a matter of opinion. It is an opinion not a fact. It is a fact that most white people are brown because the map shows this clearly. Especially considering that in the USA people from the Near East are considered white by the government. Alun 18:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Scientifically, the only fact here (and in this century, scientific backing is one of the most important criteria for a "fact") is that only white light is white. Everthing else is an opinion here. Lukas19 00:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"literally white" is also stupid. What is literally white besides sunlight? Lukas19 15:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This comment does not appear to have any relevance to this discussion. What are you whittering about? Alun 16:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It was part of Carwil's suggested replacement. This section of talk page talks about his suggestion. I'm not writing here to answer you. Lukas19 16:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Diddums. Alun 18:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm totally uninterested in these electromagnetic and "what is a color?" arguments, though I invite you to have them with the editors of white and color. Back in the world of describing people, Lukas has made one point in this long discussion:

The point is White is the most suitable "color" to be given to Europeans, especially Northern Europeans. The alternatives like brown or pink or red are WORSE. Pinkish White is more correct than Whitish Pink. Hence "The term is" NOT ONLY "the result of a eurocentric view of race". There is a relationship with how Europeans look and why white is used for us.

To respond, yes, Europeans are capable of making color distinctions, and perhaps even reasonably describing people's skin as white, and extending that description to them as a whole. The Greeks quoted in the article did it, so do many people we all know. This "white" is a quality that disappears when one gets a suntan or a sunburn or jaundice. However, it is not what "white people" in the article refers to. No one is out of the racial, legal, societal etc. category of white people because they have a sunburn. Millions are included in the racial, legal, societal etc. category of white people despite the fact that their skin is darker than most Japanese people. In fact, the physical perception is probably not itself notable, but even if it were, it belongs as White (human skin color), with none of the cultural, historical and other material discussed here. Now the fact that people who's skin is white to some observers are linked in a social category to millions of others in the category of "white people" is a social fact, and it's a social fact that emerged in Europe and in colonies administered by Europe as a way of defining race (thus "emerged from a racialized, European historical context") So here's one last revision for y'all to chew on.

Taken literally, the term white people is a

color metaphor for race, one that emerged from a racialized, European historical context.--Carwil

20:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

5)Hence, suggested text: "Some people recognized as white by some definitions are darker than some of the lighter hued persons of the "brown or yellow races [sic]," as the Supreme Court of the United States recognized in litigation over whiteness in 1923.[39]" which is already in the article. You can also say, "Taken literally, the term white people is a misnomer, since no people look like white light." Lukas19 00:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not actually wedded to "misnomer", so here's another try. But I think this is as far as I can go, so further watering down will require a third editor's opinion. Lukas, please take your "electromagnetic" misnomer concern to

The term white people is not a literal description as it is used regardless of the fact that nearly all the people described are brown, tan, pinkish or reddish in

color metaphor for race, one that emerged from a racialized, European historical context

.

--Carwil 01:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Brown? I suggest you to check the color brown. Allmost all or maybe all white people are more white than brown, unless they tan in equator for 3 months. So the correct term would be brownish, pinkish or reddish. But -ish what? Brownish, pinkish, reddish WHITE. And you should say "one that partially emerged from...". And again, "literal description" for white is silly for explained reasons. We should ask for RfC, people that are already here are already quite biased. Lukas19 04:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, people with Brown skin would be called Black in Norway, definately not white. So your suggested sentence makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If you are so concerned about "literal white "color"", I suggest you to be equally concerned about all other colors. Lukas19 04:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Really? I know very many indiginous British people who are a very light brown. Are yo saying that in Norway some indigenous Europeans are considered Black? How bizarre. Alun 06:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

He said brown, not light brown. And if you click on brown, you'll see the "literal color" Lukas19 19:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's my two penneth, it should not address "colour" but the amount of pigmentation, this is more accurate and can be explained by "degree" of pigmentation.

White people are not literally white, but they all have a significant

depigmentation of their skin. In some regions White people have a near complete depigmentation, whereas in other regions, White people may have a small degree of pigmentation. The degree of melanisation is not a purely inherited trait, the amount of pigmentation can vary due to exposure to sunlight, age and sex. Indeed the amount of pigmentation may vary on an individual, especially extremities that may get more exposure to sunlight may have a darker more brown hue than those regions that are covered such as the torso. Alun

06:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL. People just seem to not get that "literal white" is white light. Lukas19 19:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is you that don't get this. Why do you assume that literally white is a synonym for white light? Literally does not mean scientific definition. Something is literally white when it is perfectly white, such as white paint or a white sheet or a white piece of paper. i.e. literally white means the opposite of figuratively white. Please check your dictionary. Here's what the Wikipedia entry for Literal and figurative language states words in literal expressions denote what they mean according to common or dictionary usage, while words in figurative expressions connote additional layers of meaning. So when we state that humans are not literally white this is a perfectly good use of the word. It is the same as saying that humans are really figuratively white. I don't understand why you think that literally somehow means scientific. If we had wanted to say that we would have said humans are not scientifically white. So your argument doesn't really make sense. Alun 15:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to post an RfC, and feel neutral about the color list/pigmentation text, but quite strongly about the cultural context of extension, and feel that avoiding the word literal for Lukas' reasons is just plain silly. Nonetheless, here are three proposed options. Alun, could you indicate whether 2 is acceptable, or amend it to make it so. Lukas, indicate whether 3 is acceptable, or you insist on 4 or 5. I would prefer 1 or 2, would muddle through with 3, so long as we are clear the vast majority are not perceived as white in the skin color section, and would object strongly to 4 or 5.--Carwil 21:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

1. The term white people is not a literal description as it is used regardless of the fact that nearly all the people described are pinkish, reddish, tan or brown in
   color metaphor for race, one that emerged from a racialized, European historical context
   .
2. White people are not literally white, but they all have a significant
   color metaphor for race, one that emerged from a racialized, European historical context
   .
3. The term white people does not refer perceived color of skin per se; the people described can be pinkish, reddish, white, tan or brown in
   color metaphor for race, one that emerged from a racialized, European historical context
   .
4. The term white people does not refer perceived color of skin per se; the people described can be pinkish, reddish, white, tan or brown in skin color, extending the perception of white skin to a much broader set of people.
5. No reference to misconceptions, extensions, or European context/Eurocentrism.
6. With the exception of albinos, people with lightest skin color are predominantly of European descent (see the map). Therefore, the word white is used more as a comparison to darker shades of skin tone instead of the literal sense (which is white light in physics).

If you want votes I vote for number 1, of course. Veritas et Severitas 01:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

People judge color based on comparison and context so that what is one color in one situation or context is another color in a different context or situation. I remember a case of a light skinned self described "black" person who went to Africa and was universally called "white" by Africans. I remember seeing a TV documentary on current African immigration to Holland and one African women said that when she got to Holland she was shocked "because they really were white!" It is all a matter of compared to what. WAS 4.250 14:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We always use relativity. If I'm carrying 10 kg, an extra 10 gr wouldnt matter. That means 10 kg is heavy? Of course not, considering the weight of ships and stuff. That means 10 gr is light? No way if you are dealing with sub atomic particles. So, when we compare all humans, white is the most appropriate color that may be given to people with predominantly european ancestry. Lukas19 19:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In regard to the above discussion has any one seen the

unsigned comment was added by 137.138.46.155 (talk

) 14:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Veritas et Severitas makes very good points, we should take their advice and change the article for the better. --Margrave1206 23:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

March of the Titans either found here [http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/index.htm white people] #1 or here white people #2 is a great source for white history that has not been rejected. He cites sources, so it meets the verifiability requirement for inclusion. Sure, Dienekes Pontikos says he's wrong but let's examine Pontikos' arguments against Kemp. Pontikos first begins with ad hominems about Kemp being a "Nordicist" which are logically irrelevent to Kemp's arguments. Then, Pontikos claims other people have interpreted the genetics differently. Similarly, Pontikos claims the ancient artwork could be interpreted differently. Stewart also claims Kemp is wrong, but his arguments are merely unreferenced statements. It is clear that although people disagree with Kemp, they do not refute Kemp, so the website does is not rejected on those grounds.--^DarkTea 23:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

March of the Titans either found [http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/index.htm white people] #1 or here white people #2 is a great source for white history that meets Wikipedias policy on being a reliable source. First, we must examine "attributability". Even though Pontikos claims he's a Nordicist, what does that mean and does he have any evidence? His publication did not grade some races as less and some as higher which would be a characteristic of racism. Surely, just stating a hypothesis that southern Europeans miscegenated with tha non-white races does not constitute Nordicism in itself. Nordicism would be a belief in the superiority of the Nordic race which is not evidensed in the book. Pontikos seems to be making baseless claims. Second, we see "replicability". The pottery examples and skeletons Kemp uses as proof are museum pieces that anyone can observe for themselves. A similar expedition into the history of the white race would find the same examples of white history. Third, a "declaration of sources". Kemp makes it clear that his research is supported by Pub-Med and other genetic studies which are displayed on his website for all to see. Fourth, the recognition is weak. He is not recognized in his work, because mainstream anthropologists wish to publically deny the existance of race. Others such as Pontikos try in vain to attack his position, but only conclude that it is possible to arrive at a different conclusion. Fifth, is the source partisan or extremist? Contrary to what some would incorrectly conclude, a work that is hosted on a white nationalist site like Stormfront does not make the work itself extremist. The book was originally in printed form, but was copied onto the internet and hosted by Stormfront. Stormfront, a partisan organization, had no hand in writing the book and the book was not written for Stormfront's political ends, so the book itself is non-partisan. This is called the association fallacy. The book merely defines whites and their history and says non-whites are slowly encroaching and outnumbering whites, but never says some races are better than others or propose a racialized state which would make it extremist.--^DarkTea 23:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right, we could also add March of the Giants:

http://www.sitesled.com/members/racialreality/medish/

We are going to make the hell of a page here!. Honestly I am getting tired of this place and I think that Wiki is a big problem. I thought it was a good idea first, but seeing that extreme Neo-Nazis can post with user names and they are not blocked, I conclude that Wiki is a big danger to humanity. Veritas et Severitas 01:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree that we can put March of the Titans on external links.--^DarkTea 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Despite all the grasping at straws in order to justify the inclusion of March of the Titans as a link or reference, anyone who clicks on those links above can see that it is racialist propaganda full of shoddy logic and factual innacuracies, and is not a credible source. Wikipedia is not meant to be a soapbox for the white power movement, or any other political movement for that matter.Spylab 02:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What are the "factual innacuracies" and "shoddy logic" in the "[http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/index.htm History of the White Race]" website?--^DarkTea 02:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's start with the second sentence on the page: Most importantly of all, revealed in this work is the one true cause of the rise and fall of the world's greatest empires - that all civilizations rise and fall according to their racial homogeneity and nothing else - a nation can survive wars, defeats, natural catastrophes, but not racial dissolution. Um...yeah, I'm going to have to go with What is hogwash for $1000, Alex. If there's a useful piece of sourced information in that "book" online, then use the source, but that link is not appropriate here. ju66l3r 10:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that was originally part of the book. I think it was added by the websites that are hosting the book. It is stated on the website homepage but it is not written into the book's chapters, so I think the hosts are adding their two cents.--^DarkTea 03:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF gives you the benefit of the doubt...so I'm going to assume that you haven't read the "book" very well that you're trying to propose as a source. Chapter 68 ("The Coming Fall of the West", particularly Part 5) addresses the topic I quoted directly. Either way, if your assumption that the website hosting the "book" added it, then your previous argument for association fallacy is incorrect. The fact that it's hosted on stormfront.org (and that they would add content to the title page (and potentially other sections) does influence the reliability and partisanship of the link you're trying to have added...therefore it fails

WP:RS. ju66l3r

05:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This work is not available from amazon, wonder why if it's such an accurate history. This Kemp bloke seems to be a very dodgy character. Involved with far right wing politics in South Africa and with the

reliable source. Alun

11:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not know that. I tried to Google him before, but I couldn't find his biography. I suppose his person makes him a poor source.--DarkTea 01:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You should try a little harder. Just searching his name gave this link to a news story about his political roots that points out his speaking at pro-Nazi meetings in Germany and it characterizes your proposed link as a "racist history book". So, strike three and this link is out. ju66l3r 05:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we should work as a team and get dark tea permanently banned from wikipedia and his ip adress so he cant get a new account.

Just show to admin all the racist neo nazi anti semitic propaganda he is trying to push in articles and he will get banned.

Alun I am relying on you or veritas as i dont know how to report people but please report this racist immediately.--Globe01 16:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been dealing with people like this on Wikipedia long before I ever saw you here. I'm only saying that so you don't think I'm dropping in at the last minute to post some biased crap. Having said that, I side firmly with Voltaire who said "I'll fight to the death for your right to be wrong". To put it another way, I'm completely against censorship - even when its censoring racists comments. Hell, as a gay man in a red state who grew up in a holy roller church, I know a thing or two about prejudice. I'm still against censoring people who do it. Censoring is just organized bigotry and, as bigotry, is no better than any other kind of bigotry. The only morally and ethically defensible response to bigots (including racists) is to encourage them to speak more, not less. Violating policy is a reason for censur. Disagreeing with what someone says is not.-Psychohistorian 03:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree wit Psychohis, I strongly disagree with Dark Tea on just about everything, but I can also acknowledge that she is a tireless contributor, and has an abundance of energy. She is also interested in correctly verifying sources and high academic standards. We do not hound people we disacgree with, we work together to find a solution, even if the path is sometimes tortuous and stormy. Alun 07:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Are Portuguese, Spanish and Meditteranean people Whites? Their skin colour isn't like the Celts, Slavic, Nordic and Germanic people, and many of them have olive skin. So how can they be White people? --Fantastic4boy 06:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No one is white. White people is a cultural/social term. Skin colour is affected by sunlight as well as genetics remember. Do you think Finnish people do not have a dark skin colour? I live in Finland and am from Wales (a Celtic country), there are many Finns with dark skin, and there are many Welsh people with dark skin, we just don't get so much sun. You are realy talking about the amount of pigment in the skin, not whether someone is white or not. Northern Europeans are somewhat more depigmented, but who is white is a cultural/social consideration. In the USA Hispanic people may not be considered white, but people of Near Eastern origin (Arab and Jewish people) are considered White. Indeed until recently people of Indian origin were considered White on the US census. [9] So whether someone is White" or not has little to do with actual skin colour and everything to do with social and cultural perceptions. Alun 07:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at

labile skin colour really is. Alun

07:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If one counts Europeans as whites, then yes the Portuguese, Spanish, and other Meditteranean people would be white. About skin color, as stated above skin tone varies in every population group...being "White" doesn't mean being a 'normal American'!!!...and actually in the U.S. a great many Hispanics would be considered White....about half checked White as their race...(and let's not forget what Hispanic actually means) the thing is that if you pass a person of Mexican descent with red hair and fair skin...you will not think of them as "Hispanic" (the way it has come to be) and label them in your head as White. You won't realize they are Hispanic (of caucasian or caucasian/amerindian ancestry, i.e. Mestizo). The number of White Hispanics therefore shrinks as society sees tham as plain White socially... and the fact that most Hispanics do have European genes make them closer to being White than near easterners. Also, a recent study published by a scientist, I forget his name, stated that most of the people in Great Britain are indeed descended from people who came from the Iberian peninsula...that is to say...Spain. The previous thoughts about Celtics and what not are questioned and thought to be incorrect. Cali567 12:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The article needs to reflect the fast that white as a term and or grouping of a race is in err. No one is truly white, nor is anyone truly black. This 18th century color coding of people is flawed and foolish. Also it racist to have images of people on this page, it gives people the wrong idea. A real encyclopedia would not have this let alone, the historical section that deems to use ancient documents to poorly support a purely bias stance. Why could, or why should Europeans or anyone be white, or a color? Within each national group people have their race of origin. As do all Europeans, and sub groups of such. Group of people can be considered a race according to their original race/tribe. Ex. French people would be the race of Normands etc. Everyone has their own original ancient tribe to define themselves, which is very true for the Teutonic people. What is the point of forcing people to be in a group as white when this as a term has not logic behind it besides outside appearance. --Margrave1206 19:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That is the point: White is a term that Europeans have used to refer to themselves, but they are not white. As to skin pigmentation I have already said it, so-called whites range from different shades of brown to what we might call beige or even pinkish or reddish (In fact they are among the most colorful people on earth. It is interesting that they call others colored). As far as Mediterranean Europeans or any Europeans are concerned I guess they change races during the year a lot:

Take a look at the Spanish prime minister here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Luis_Rodr%C3%ADguez_Zapatero

Then here: http://www.clarin.com/diario/2006/01/07/thumb/t044dh04.jpg

Especially here he might belong to what we could call the "brown race": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:JL_Rodr%C3%ADguez_Zapatero.jpg

Then this guy turns "white" again here: http://www.dw-world.de/image/0,,1146464_4,00.jpg

I guess this guy changes races during the year, he must be some kind of strange creature. In any case, in none of the pictures is he literally "white", like the rest of the people who may call themselves "white". Veritas et Severitas 20:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Haha...he looks the same in every picture, the only thing different is the lighting. Go outside and take a picture of yourself and then take a picture in your house with all the curtains closed....see it now? Cali567 01:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I am just being sarcastic and making parodies here, looking at the level of some contributors. Still, the same people skin pigmentation can change a lot and no white person is literally "white". Veritas et Severitas 02:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I get your point..lol, I apologize if I was out of line.....Cali567 07:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is a good point. Some editors here have made a big deal about how northern Europeans are "lighter" than southern Europeans. They do not seem to realise that this small variation is as likely to do with the relative amount of sunlight each region gets. I wonder how Scandinavians would look if they spent the whole year in Spain, or California? Likewise if mediteranean people lived in Scandinavia they would be significantly paler. Oddly enough I know several Spanish people here in Finland. Alun 15:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This is what User:Wobble has written me in my talk page. I'm gonna paste and answer it here so all can see: Lukas19 22:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to say this here because the talk page for White people is getting a bit confusing. I have not actually disputed what you said about how physists define colour. What I ahve said is that this is irrelevant. White is a colour because that is how people perceive it, how physics defines it is a different and irrelevant subject. You seem to have come to the conclusion that when the term "literally white" is used, somehow this implies or means that only the definition of white that physics uses is relevant. This is not the case. Literal is not a synonym for "scientific". If we had wanted to say this, we would say that people are not "scientifically white". Literal is the opposite of figurative. When we use a term figuratively we are using it by analogy. Literally on the other hand means that we are using a word in it's most understood sense. So actually it is perfectly correct to state that humans are not literally white. Here's what the wikipedia article Literal and figurative language says words in literal expressions denote what they mean according to common or dictionary usage, while words in figurative expressions connote additional layers of meaning. Here's what the OED says about the word literal 1 using or interpreting words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.[10] So I must say that I think this confusion has been caused by you not actually understanding what the word literally means. Hope this observation clears up the misunderstanding. Alun 16:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: All definitions are from Oxford English Dictionary:

"white:

adjective 1 of the colour of milk or fresh snow, due to the reflection of all visible rays of light. 2 very pale. 3 relating to a human group having light-coloured skin, especially of European ancestry. 4 morally or spiritually pure. 5 Brit. (of coffee or tea) served with milk or cream. 6 (of food such as bread or rice) light in colour through having been refined. 7 (of wine) made from white grapes, or dark grapes with the skins removed, and having a yellowish colour.

noun 1 white colour or pigment. 2 (also whites) white clothes or material. 3 the visible pale part of the eyeball around the iris. 4 the outer part which surrounds the yolk of an egg; the albumen. 5 a member of a light-skinned people. 6 a white or cream butterfly. "

So:

1) White as in white people is a literal word because it is used according to dictionary usage. It also satisfies common usage condition since white people is used commonly. So, conditions from Literal and figurative language, which is quoted above, is satisfied.

2)About OED definition of literal, lets look at metaphor and allegory

2-a)Metaphor: "Metaphor

A metaphor is a figure of speech that goes further than a simile, either by saying that something is something else that it could not normally be called, e.g.

The moon was a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas

Stockholm, the Venice of the North

or by suggesting that something appears, sounds, or behaves like something else, e.g.

burning ambition

the long arm of the law

blindingly obvious. "

Or from wiki: "In language, a metaphor (from the Greek: metapherin rhetorical trope) is defined as a direct comparison between two or more seemingly unrelated subjects and mainly uses "is a" to join the first subjects."

an ex:

"All the world's a stage,

And all the men and women merely players

They have their exits and their entrances; — (William Shakespeare, As You Like It, 2/7) "

"In this example, "the world" is compared to a stage, the aim being to describe the world by taking well-known attributes from the stage."

So color metaphors for race are not metaphors becase they are based on how people look (direct relation), rather than "seemingly unrelated subjects" or "by saying that something is something else that it could not normally be called"(indirect relation). The relationship between a white person and white as a "color" is different than the relationship between world and stage since You can look at the white person and SEE the relationship.

2-b) allegory

/aligri/

noun (pl. allegories) a story, poem, or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning.

So, we see that white in white people is not an allegory since it doesnt satisfy any of the above conditions.

Hence we can see that white as in white people satisfies the "without metaphor or allegory" condition in the definition of literal in OED. The only thing remaining part is "using or interpreting words in their usual or most basic sense". This is subjective. White as in white people IS in the usual or most basic sense to me. I understand that some people disagree with this and think white in its "usual or most basic sense" is white in white paper. However, this is also SUBJECTIVE since this usage IS NOT scientific for the explained reasons in Talk:White_people#Protection and hence NOT OBJECTIVE.

Note, if you are going to answer this, do not disect it and write your answer AFTER this. Lukas19 22:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't you say please. You have no authority to make demands. You constantly try ot order people arround. I'd watch that if I were you, we're all equal here. Alun 22:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you saying? I have no idea what the above is supposed to mean. This just seems to be another example of you concocting arguments based on sophistry, which seems to be soemthing of a forte with you, linking long unrelated arguments together in such a way as to attempt to make some sort of "point", which is usually quite opaque to everyone else. Dictionaries give usage as well as definitions you know (I thought everyone knew that). The dictionary does not say that light coloured skin is a definition of "white", indeed it claims light coloured skin. So the dictionary is in fact agreeing that people with "light coloured skin" are not literally white (they merelt have light coloured skin), but can be called white. No one claims that "white tea" or "white coffee" is literally white, or are you saying exactly that? I really don't think I need to respond to this further as it is so obviously contrived. Alun 22:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This user continues pushing his point of view as if he owned the article. Right now he is in arguments against Psychohistorian, Carwil and me in different places. I am tired of reverting him. Just look at his conduct. Since he and other users with his positions appeared in this article, this article has had a lot of incredible problems. He often just says: Read previous sections and that is it. He seems to be the boss here, which I think fits very well his view of the world. Veritas et Severitas 03:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the 3rd or 4th or maybe more time that you have created an entire section to "warn" (with thinly veiled insults) people about my edits. Stop or I will report you for Harassment. This is my final warning to you. Lukas19 07:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)