It used to be that people used to inaccurately use the term Aryan to describe light skinned people. After the Nazi’s used the term so heavily we’ve dropped the term because it’s “racist” because the Nazi’s used it. I can understand the reasoning there…
However, now the term “Caucasian” gets used. It’s just a euphemistic way of saying “Aryan”. Caucasian implies that your ancestors came from the Caucasus region… where the Aryan tribes migrated from. It’s the exact same thing. The term needs to be dropped.
It gets used inaccurately anyway. We should just call the group we are actually referring to “white”. The Irish get called “Caucasian” because they’re white, but they aren’t Caucasian at all, they’re Celts. On the other hand, people in India could be called Caucasian, but they aren’t white.
I think that the term Caucasian should not be used anymore. It’s used inaccurately and it means the same thing as Aryan. Shouldn’t we just call these people White?
My impression is that the term is mostly used in the United States, and I think its popularity had much to do with the desire (in the past) to give a veneer of scientific respectability not only to racism directed at black people and East Asians, but also to antisemitism. (Strictly speaking, Jews are Caucasian, but the term was at one time used in the US in senses which excluded Jews.) The question of its application to people from South Asia didn’t really arise; at the time, there was no significant South Asian community in the US.
Racism and antisemtism were not confined to the United States, of course, but other societies found other euphemisms.
Is the term much used in the US today? And, if it is, does it function as anything other than a synonym for “white”?
Well then why not go back to “Aryan”. It would seem to me that attempts to identify populations linguistically or genetically have some extrinsic value but to identify populations simply by colour is of no use at all.
In Denmark “white” is used. Although I have lately heard the term “Caucasian”. No doubt inspired by the USA, but it sounds extremely silly in Danish. In Russia “Caucasian” is synonym with “nigger”.
Maybe that’s because many people in the UK are such a pasty shade of white. In the USA we’re a broader variety of hues. This is mostly caused by the sun, something which only makes an occasional showing in some northern places.
I read up on the subject to be sure… and it looks like not only are the Irish not “Aryan”, the entire British Isles seem to be non-Aryan. It looks like the term “Caucasian” makes even less sense then I thought.
I know this is a Wikipedia article but it seems to have good cites…
Basically what I had meant is that the Irish are Celtic people, and the Celts were in Europe before the Aryan tribes migrated there.
I don’t like to be referred to as a caucasian. Where I am ALL official forms of any sort ask for race. We are normally given four options (Chinese, Indian, Malay and other - with the need to specify the other)
I also don’t like the term white. If you’re going to use “white” then be definition shouldn’t black, yellow and red all be acceptable terms? And I don’t think anyone wants to go there.
I much prefer caucasian to either European or Aryan.
Why do we really need a term at all? Why can’t we just use our nationalities? I do very much self identify as either “Kiwi” (NO NOT THE FRUIT!!) or New Zealander.
If you are looking for a cultural perspective (rather than something genetic) could you go for descriptors like Juedo Christian, WASP, Portestant or similiar - I know these are mostly religious - but then it could also give “Asian” (yes this should fall out of use also) countries the option to choose terms like Buddhist, Confucionist etc etc.
You seem to be confused on the etymology and usage, here.
The word Caucasian was first applied in a racial sense by J. F. Blumenbach (1752 - 1840), around the turn of the 19th century, who was looking for a word to identify one of the racial groups he was proposing as a correction to the earlier racial groups tht Linnaeus had proposed. Borrowing from one bit of speculation going at the time, that humanity had arisen in the Caucasus mountains, he identified everyone from Ireland and the Orkneys in a wide swath down to southern India as “Caucasian,” giving other labels to the other perceived races that he believed were variants from that original group. At that time, he certainly did not mean that Caucasian = white; that association came later as people attempted to use (and misuse) his proposals.
Aryan was a separate category that simply meant the people in the regions of Iran through Northern India, based on language relationships. It was a fluke of history that, as the linguistic term Aryan became associated with the IndoEuropean languages, various ethnographers of the 19th century leaped from the idea of a primal language to a primal “race” and then, (assuming that the best of humanity was obviously Northern European), began applying the word Aryan to Nordic peoples and peoples like them.
In the U.S., (although it occurred elsewhere, as well), the word Caucasian was employed as a synonym for white in an effort to pretend that there was scientific support for the separation of the perceived races. (This actually backfired, a bit, when it was made clear that Blumenbach’s identification placed dark-skinned East Indians into the same group as whites, causing the Supreme Court to backpedal a bit and rule that white was what was meant in law and not Caucasian.)
If one chooses to employ the Blumenbach terminology, (and I know no legitimate scientist who still does), then Irish are every bit as much Caucasian as Tamils.
You are correct that Caucasian is an erroneous term for anyone outside the actual Caucasus Mountains, but I think you will find that science dropped any other usage some time back and the only folks who continue to use it are those who are simply harkening back to some confused high school science classes who have not paid attention to the changes in biology and anthropology in the last 40 years.
I thought the Celts were originally chariot peoples who migrated (conquered?) westward from an origin point near the Caucasus Mountains – is this story outdated?
Also, can anyone cite that Aryan used to be used routinely for “white people” before the Nazis? I’m unfamiliar with that usage.
To my mind it is simply an arbitrary term that got associated with (essentially) White folk by way of the scientifiv jargon of the 19th century. The “science” part has been abandoned long ago, but the term remains.
Same as “Semite” used to describe Jews, and “anti-Semite” used to describe Jew-haters. Every once in a while, predictably as clockwork, some Jew-hater proudly but pointlessly announces that they aren’t “anti-Semitic” since Arabs are semites and they don’t hate Arabs! Fact is that the term “anti-Semite” has simply via historical evolution come to mean Jew-hater, whether that Jew is a “semite” or not.
There is no particular sense in dropping either term, if they are in widespread use. Sure they are more or less arbitrary, but why should that matter?
‘Nigger’ is a just another way of saying someone has a melanous appearance. But that’s been given such a damage that not even hapless old Cosmo can get away with using it nowadays! (…unless one spells it ‘ebonically’ that is :rolleyes: )
But like Shakes said:
‘Words are but words.
I never yet did hear,
That the bruised heart
Was pierced through the ear!’
And if anyone’s the word on words, it’s Willy Shake!
2 : of, constituting, or characteristic of a race of humankind native to Europe, North Africa, and southwest Asia and classified according to physical features —used especially in referring to persons of European descent having usually light skin pigmentation
Some words or terms simply get co-opted into a commonly accepted use and meaning. For instance, in the '60s the word ‘trippin’ meant an entirely different thing that when you use that word today. Many words/phrases are that way.
I never say I’m caucasion, I say, "I be a European American, and I be changin’ my’s name to Thor Ragnar Uff Da!!
We may well be a pasty bunch, but considering we term ‘white’ as anyone of European descent, including lovely hot places like Spain, Greece and Italy, then, err, no.
In the US, at least, we use “Black” to denote almost anyone who has some recognizable African ancestry. Many, if not most of these people are not anywhere near black in appearance. In that case, “White” seems to be OK, even though it’s going to apply to many people who are not anywhere near white in appearance. While “Caucasion” might seem more inclusive, I think most Americans take the two terms to be synonymous. I say don’t fight it-- people are going to use whichever word they are more comfortable with or are used to using.
