A Twitter post claims that the phrase “white people” to refer to Caucasians generally is a relatively modern American invention. It feels at least sensible to me, but do we know either way?
It goes back at least as far as 1899 Britain, with Kipling’s “White Man’s Burden”. And probably a lot further.
The better question is when did “Caucasian” come to mean “white”? Most white people are from far from the Caucasus mountains.
The (true or false) story that the word “Caucasus” means “white” or “white like snow” goes back to at least Pliny the Elder, though. Kipling did not make that up.
I know some actual Caucasians, but I am not comfortable with asking them whether they think of themselves as “white”. That seems like a pretty American thing to ask or even contemplate.
The term was first introduced by the German anatomist Johann Friedrich Blumenbach. In his book De generis humani varietate nativa, or On the Natural Varieties of Mankind (1795), Blumenbach divided humanity into five varieties, or types: Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, American, and Malay. He gave the name Caucasian to the European type because he believed that the ancestors of the Europeans originated in the Caucasus Mountains on the border of Europe and Asia, from the Black Sea to the Caspian Sea. He argued that the people of that area were the most beautiful humans, and because they were the ideal humans, they must have been the first ones created. Blumenbach then asserted that the Europeans were the ancestors of all the other types.
Caucasian | Social Sciences and Humanities | Research Starters | EBSCO Research
Then popularized by Ernst Haeckel.
Wikipedia suggests the descriptor “white” (to differentiate from Black or indigenous people) originated in the Americas in the 17th century.
By the mid-seventeenth century, the novel term español (“Spaniard”) was being equated in written documents with blanco, or “White”.
In 1680, Morgan Godwyn “found it necessary to explain” to English readers that “in Barbados, ‘white’ was ‘the general name for Europeans.’”
Blumenbach was way ahead of his time. It’s now believed that modern Europeans along with the Indo-European languages emerged from the Yamnaya culture which lived in the Caucasus.
“The question of where the Yamnaya come from has been something of a mystery up to now…we can now answer that as we’ve found that their genetic make-up is a mix of Eastern European hunter-gatherers and a population from this pocket of Caucasus hunter-gatherers who weathered much of the last Ice Age in apparent isolation.”
you could also question how Aryan came to be associated with Nordic White, when the term Aryan originally referred to Indo-Iran people
Other way round. White, as a term for light-sklnned people as a racial group, is much older than Caucasian. The OED has citations for white in this sense going back to 1400, while Caucasian for a division of humanity doesn’t turn up until 1794. It’s an enlightenment-era attempt to put a scientific, rational veneer on cultural attitudes to race and ethnicity.
Which isn’t surprising, given that color is the most obvious difference between the races, and while the color of “white” people isn’t actually white, and the color of “black” people isn’t actually black, they’re easy shorthands for “light color” and “dark color”.
Blame Arthur de Gobineau. His racial theories putting Europeans - the white race - at the top of humanity lead in a straight line to Hitler.
My understanding is it started around the time Europeans started conquering Africa and Latin America, and had to deal with the subjugated indigenous people who looked different from them.
If white people were constantly fighting amongst themselves by nationality (English, German, French, Dutch, Spanish, Italian, etc) or about religion (catholic, protestant, etc) then they would more easily be overrun by all the indigenous American natives and black slaves.
Its kind of like how in the streets, gangs may fight each other who all have the same race (white biker gangs fight each other, black street gangs fight each other, MS-13 and 18th street fight each other) but once they get to prison, they basically ally along racial lines to avoid being overrun by the other racial gangs.
you might want to check out the book “The Rise and Fall of the Caucasian Race” by Bruce Baum, that discusses ‘who’ is/was considered “Caucasian”
Looks interesting. But if you’ve read this 20-year-old out of print book that’s not in my library, why don’t you tell us why Gobineau isn’t critically important.
where did I say that? I just added another book that’s in line with the discussion
So you brought it up even though you haven’t read it? WTF?
I’m speechless and given the normal length of my posts, that’s a first.
I’m not sure that’s true. At least the idea of a dichotomy between “white” people who are inherently superior to “black” people, and must be kept separate from them, is much later than that.
For example If you read contemporary accounts of “black” Africans in Elizabethan England, of which there are plenty. Even though the Atlantic slave trade is well underway at this point, you will hear if black people marrying white people, getting into court cases with them, etc. you won’t hear commentary that implies this is a bad thing because of their race, which you would later (that’s not to say the descriptions weren’t racist but they lacked that in-built assumption of white=good black=bad).
Of course that doesn’t mean the terms weren’t in use at that point.
I did read the Rise .., but my reply to you is that I did not dismiss Gobineau–don’t put words in my mouth
@Exapno_Mapcase , I recommend that you actually read what other posters are saying before getting bent out of shape over them. First you ask @fedman1 why Gobineau isn’t important, when he never said that he wasn’t, and then when he points that out you say without evidence that he never read the book he suggested.
He posted his comment as a reply to mine, saying that I should “check out” the book. The obvious implication is that the book would correct or refute or at least amplify my post. That’s how words and context work. If the book had anything to say about Gabineau, a normal poster would have mentioned it at the time. There was absolutely no need to do a belated reply to my post. His comment would have been fine alone in a thread about the subject.
He may be just an oddball or crank. But I thought we were supposed to report possible trolling. I have. My job is done.