According to this link this term dates back to 1853.
Yes, and “sable” dates back to at least the 1700s.
I suppose if you were being particularly obstinate, you might try to suggest that “came up with,” can be interpreted in no other way than as synonymous with “invented.”
However, taking that stance would recquire contextual blinders a mile long, a perverse commitment to absolute literalism, and an inability to read within context so severe as to equal a major mental disability.
So, I’m hoping that’s not what you meant, and there’s some kind of worthwhile point in bringing up that piece of trivia.
I can’t wait to see what it is.
So, what IS the new name?
Welcome to the board Tarkus! My suggestion for the name was “sable.”
I imagine you’re a little confused looking at this discussion. That’s because when you clicked on it, it brought you into page two.
There’s a whole first page where the discussion begins, that’ll make everything a little clearer.
To access it, you need to click not on the thread’s name, but on the number (1) that appears next to it.
That number is also located either at the bottom or the top of this page.
You’ll see that some threads have several page numbers when they get long.
I hope that helps some.
Why not be clear about what you’re saying? This is supposed to be serious, right? In case it is, I just wanted to point out that your use of “came up with” is not to be interpreted as “invented”, which is strongly implied.
Easyphil:
Well, thanks for emphasizing the obvious.
Doubtless your diligence in this has averted a terrible disaster of misunderstanding among the reading comprehension disabled.
Keep up the good work.
So, Sable is place of Black?
Well, the dictionary DOES define it as the color “Black”, among other things.
Being “Black”, I just question the literal use of the word itself. I mean, no one is REALLY black. Brown, certainly, so I’m not so sure that Sable would be accurate.
Sounds nice though. 
Thank you! Now shall we continue with this most stimulating and meaningful discussion? What a great debate!
I guess that would depend on whether you having anything worthwhile to bring to the table.
So far you haven’t contributed anything meaningful, and I don’t have particularly high hopes of that changing anytime soon.
Tarkus:
Well, yeah, and I’m not really “white” either. Nothing’s perfect, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MEBuckner *
**
The “official” names of the “three races” were Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid.
Agreed. But, I guess based on what the Moderator posted about the official three names, the term “White” is slang for the proper identification of Caucasoid. So, it would seem that the term “Black” be slank for the proper identification of Negroid.
I’m curious, are those the ONLY three? Any anthropologist to chime in on this?
I think the idea was that white people originally came from the Caucasus Mountains, but I’m not sure…same idea with the term “Aryan”.
On the other hand, the name “Caucasian” comes from the Latin word for chalk, I believe, and the area that’s now Azerbaijan was called “Albania”, which comes from the Latin from white, by the Romans…so, apparently they made some connection between the region and whiteness.
Here’s a site which lists the five (yep, count 'em) racial divisions of humanity: Capoid, Congoid, Caucasoid, Australoid, and Mongoloid. In case it matters…
Well, I was sort of trying to convey that the “three races” model is obsolete, hence the reference to the “four elements” model (earth, air, fire, and water). Originally I believe they tried to shoe-horn everyone into one of the three “races”. (So American Indians, having originally come from Asia, would have been stuck in to the “Mongoloid Race”; many fairly dark-skinned people from places like the Middle East or South Asia would have been counted as “Caucasoid”, and so on.) Later, they started adding additional “races” in addition to the original three. Eventually they gave up on trying to divide Homo sapiens sapiens into a small number of discrete groups. Different people are different. And different populations from different parts of the Earth vary physically (by skin color, blood types, prevalance of sickle-cell trait, etc.) But the human species, as it exists today, just isn’t biologically divisible into anything resembling “subspecies”–there’s no Homo sapiens Caucasicus or Homo sapiens Africanus; it’s all sapiens sapiens, some of whom are tall and some short, some with brown eyes and some with green eyes, some with pale skin and some with dark brown skin, some of whom can easily digest milk into adulthood and some of whom can’t.
I wanna be called Royalty. As in “This used to be a nice neighborhood until the Royalty moved in.” Or, “20 percent of Royal men are in the prison system.”
The welfare rolls are filled with Royalty.
Damned Royalty and their loud hip hop!
So, medically speaking, there is absolutely no difference between what we call a caucasian human and what we call a black human?
Hey Tarkus, we are discussing that very question right [url"http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=109876"]here.
Let’s try that again. Right here.
You sure about that?
You want to be lumped in with Fergie and Charles, and all those pale effete bastards?
Damn! Hasn’t this country done enough to the black man already, that we could forgo this kind of cruelty?
What about the people who have no tree name? Latin-Americans, for example? Me, I’m gonna be a Baobaob tree, cause I like the name.