Thread: Caucasian

I think this is one of the silliest uses for words in the English language, as we use this to mean "any white person", although the REAL people in the Caucasus area such as Chechens, Georgians, Azerbaijani, and so on, do not look very similar to average white people in the US. Does anyone know the origin of using this word as a more fancy term for "white"? And is it used in this way only in the US or also in Britain? What are you supposed to call people in the region between the Black and Caspian sea anyway? They have more Middle Eastern features about them but they are not Arabs.

By the way, did you know when filling out the "Race" part of a form, Arabs are supposed to check "Caucasian/White"? I find this silly. Isn't the whole point of asking people what their race is on a form so you can distinguish differences in how the form is filled out between ethnic groups? It seems pretty silly to me that nowadays forms have "Puerto Rican", "Mexican", "Other South American", but no "Arab."

Technically speaking, a Caucasian is someone who belongs to the Caucasoid racial group (which takes in Europe, North Africa, India and parts of Asia). It has nothing to do with the Caucasus where Tolstoy had all his youthful fun.

All the same, it does seem anachronistic to be grouping people by 'race' these days, doesn't it?

Thanks for the explanation. But then technically speaking, Hispanics would also be classified as "Caucasoids", correct? At any rate, I don't see why "Puerto Rican" and "Mexican" are seperate choices from "Other Hispanic."

I think this practice is indeed out of our time, but they use it to figure out on standardized tests, for example, if a certain ethnic group does poorer than the others. Of course, I don't know how you would remedy this, but our solution seems to simply pump more money into schools and hope they know what to do with it.

Let's say that Arabic children did poorly on tests(they don't, but it's just an example) but they are all grouped under "white." Then you would have skewed results and not be able to tell that it was only the children coming from an Arabic ethnic background which were having problems. As for major differences between a "Puerto Rican" and "Mexican" background...

There are only four major races (or three, according to some sources). In Russian, when we talk about races, we say

европеоидная (белая) раса
негроидная (черная) раса
монголоидная (желтая) раса
австралоидная раса (some scientists believe Australian aborigenes are a branch of African (негроидная) race).

All that Mexican, Arabs etc. are all европеоиды (caucasian). Оnly when you divide this race into smaller branches, you may say about Hispanic etc. But we usually don't say about them 'races' (расы). Rather народ или семья.

I was always mystified, why people of "white" race are called "caucasian" in English (or it is american term)? I read somewhere, what its roots lay in some old obscure pseudo-scientific theory, supposing the white race origins lay somewhere in caucasian mountains. For me it sounds quite silly.

Anyway, term "europeoid" makes much more sense than "caucasian". Why not just use it?

BTW, "caucasian" always was a source of confusion for people with poor knowledge of English. This is especially true for translators of English novels of early 1990s. Then they encounter something alike:

"Police found corpse of man, caucasian, aged 40-50..."

they bravely and mindlessly translated it like

"Полиция обнаружила труп кавказца сорока-пятидесяти лет..."

making readers wonder, why there are so much Georgians/Armenians in USA.

:P

FYI the term "caucasian" is indeed only used that way in North America. Of course people in Blighty understand what is meant by it, by virtue of exposure to so much US pop culture, but it is not and has never been an official term here. I'm not 100% sure about Aus and NZ, but I'm not aware that it's used there either.

Originally Posted by Scorpio

I was always mystified, why people of "white" race are called "caucasian" in English (or it is american term)? I read somewhere, what its roots lay in some old obscure pseudo-scientific theory, supposing the white race origins lay somewhere in caucasian mountains. For me it sounds quite silly.

Yes, it is predominantly an American term. Even though most other native English speakers will understand.

The roots lay not in a pseudo-scientific theory. They lay in the official American religion.

Originally Posted by [url

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/ararat.html[/url]]
Ararat
Meaning: sacred land or high land

The name "Ararat" is mentioned four times in the Bible's original manuscripts (Gen. 8:4; 2 Kings 19:37; Isaiah 37:38; Jer. 51:27). This was the name of a country. On one of its mountains Noah's ark rested after the Flood subsided (Gen. 8:4). Most researchers believe that the "mountains" mentioned were probably the Kurdish range of South Armenia in Turkey. In the King James Bible, 2 Kings 19:37 and Isa. 37:38 translate the word "Ararat" as "Armenia." However, other versions, including the New King James Version, simply say "land of Ararat."

In this area of modern Turkey, near the Russian and Iranian borders, there is a large mountain named Mount Ararat. It is made entirely of volcanic rock and is an extinct volcano that rose during Noah's flood. The highest point is almost 17,000 feet above sea level, and the mountain consists of two peaks, Great Ararat and Little Ararat. It rises a majestic 14,000 feet from the plain of Aras (Araxes). The higher peak is perpetually covered in snow.

The mountain is called Kuh-i-nuh, i.e., "Noah's mountain", by the Persians. Many modern researchers have climbed Mt. Ararat in search of the remains of Noah's Ark.

It is believed that the land of "Ararat" is the Hebrew equivalent of Urardhu, or Urartu, which was the Assyrian-Babylonian name of the Vannic or Chaldean kingdom (between the Aras River and the Tigris River). This part of Armenia was inhabited by a people who spoke a language unlike any other now known, though it may have been related to the modern Georgian. About B.C., 900 they borrowed the cuneiform characters of Nineveh, and from this time we have inscriptions of a line of kings who at times contended with Assyria. At the close of the seventh century B.C. the kingdom of Ararat came to an end, and the country was occupied by a people who are ancestors of the Armenians of the present day.

Background:

Originally Posted by [url

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/ednks003.html[/url]]
Today's news is often filled with terrible disasters which kill hundreds or even thousands of people. But, can you imagine a disaster so terrible that only 8 people in the whole world survived. Its true, Noah and his wife, his three sons, and their wives were the only people saved from the largest flood of all time.

Notice the "three sons". Which are:

Originally Posted by [url

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/japheth.html[/url]]
Japheth
Meaning is uncertain - either "wide spreading" as in "God shall enlarge Japheth" (Hebrew: Yaphat Elohim le-Yephet, Gen. 9:27), or some derive the name from yaphah, "to be beautiful."

Japheth was one of the sons of Noah, mentioned last in order (Gen. 5:32; 6:10; 7:13), perhaps first by birth (10:21; compare 9:24). [Note: The KJV, NKJV and NIV show Japheth as the "elder" in Gen. 10:21. However, the NASV, RSV and NRSV assume the meaning was opposite, that Shem was "the elder brother of Japheth." The NASV marginal note acknowledges that this assumption may be wrong.]

Japheth and his wife were two of the eight saved in the ark (1 Pet. 3:20). The name of his wife is not mentioned. He was the progenitor of many tribes inhabiting the east of Europe and the north of Asia (Gen. 10:2-5). An act of filial piety (9:20-27) was the occasion of Noah's prophecy of the extension of his posterity.

After the Flood, the earth was re-peopled by the descendants of Noah, "the sons of Japheth" (Gen. 10:2), "the sons of Ham" (Gen 10:6), and "the sons of Shem" (Gen. 10:22).

He was the ancestor of "many tribes inhabiting the east of Europe and the north of Asia". If you look at a map, you'll see that "the east of Europe and the north of Asia" is precisely the Caucasus region (the Far Asia, China and India, was not known when the Bible was written, so that "Asia" means "Near East" in modern terms; this also explains why the "three biblical races" do not include the Mongoloid race).

Originally Posted by [url

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/shem.html[/url]]
Shem
Meaning: a name; renown

the first mentioned of the sons of Noah (Gen. 5:32; 6:10)

He was probably the eldest of Noah's sons. The words "brother of Japheth the elder" in Gen. 10:21 are more correctly rendered "the elder brother of Japheth," as in the Revised Version. Shem's name is generally mentioned first in the list of Noah's sons. He and his wife were saved in the ark (7:13). Noah foretold his preeminence over Canaan (9:23-27). He died at the age of six hundred years, having been for many years contemporary with Abraham, according to the usual chronology. The Israelitish nation sprang from him (Gen. 11:10-26; 1 Chr. 1:24-27).

So now we have "the Israelitish nation", another biblical race.

Originally Posted by [url

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/ham.html[/url]]
Ham
Meaning: warm, hot, and hence the south; also an Egyptian word meaning "black"

This was the name of the youngest son of Noah (Gen. 5:32; compare 9:22,24).

The races that developed from the children of Ham were the most energetic of all the descendants of Noah in the early times of the post-Flood world.

One of the most important facts recorded in Gen. 10 is the foundation of the earliest monarchy in Babylonia by Nimrod the grandson of Ham (6, 8, 10). The early Babylonian empire was thus Hamitic, and a cognate race with the early inhabitants of Arabia and of Ethiopia.

So that's the Negroid race, the third biblical race.

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Anyway, term "europeoid" makes much more sense than "caucasian".

It sure does.

Why not just use it?

Because "In God We Trust" (tm).

Bad manners, once again with the complete and thorough answers!

As for 'In God we Trust', I had a Russian friend ask me why it is printed on all of our money. It seems there aren't more incompatible things than God and money

Thank you, bad manners, perfect explanation. Yes, this is actually much worse than any scientific theory.

I never stop admire, how people do believe all these funny things from Old Testament. Who can explain, how three sons of Noah can belong to three different RACES? Probably, his sons were from three wives with various skin colors? But Bible says nothing about this... The origins of mongoloid and american indian race remains a mystery too :P

Originally Posted by Scorpio

I never stop admire, how people do believe all these funny things from Old Testament. Who can explain, how three sons of Noah can belong to three different RACES? Probably, his sons were from three wives with various skin colors?

Believe it or not, the modern "explanations" marry the Bible and genetics. You can easily find these "explanations" on the Internet. I find them too insulting to human intelligence to cite them here.

The origins of mongoloid and american indian race remains a mystery too :P

The Old Testament was written by the (pre-historical) Jews. It is not difficult to see that it actually talks about the People (the Jews) and the Goyim (the Gentiles, the Heathen, the Enemy), which surrounded them. I do not think that anybody might seriously take that for the genuine then-current cosmography, ditto for the Genesis. It is as laughable as the ancient Greek cosmography and their Olympic genesis.

Um...there is no "official" American religion. Although there obviously is a strong Christian bias.

They ask the race question so polititians can be racist. They, however, call it something like deversity or equal-opportunity. The question is always optional and I like to fill something in under "Other".

Tim.

Yah I remember George Bush talking about how in Iraq, "the church" should be separate from the state. Unless I've been asleep for the last couple of millennia, Muslims don't go to churches.

Originally Posted by Rahul

Yah I remember George Bush talking about how in Iraq, "the church" should be separate from the state. Unless I've been asleep for the last couple of millennia, Muslims don't go to churches.

In this sense "church" is a reference to the religious powers and does not necessarily mean "Christian church." Although I don't think Bush is the brightest of fellows, he would sound even worse if he said something like "I think the Mosque should be seperate from the State."

By the way, how do you refer to people from the Caucusus in American English?

I've been wondering for some time, do Muslims swear on Bible when witnessing in the court?

Originally Posted by roxfan

I've been wondering for some time, do Muslims swear on Bible when witnessing in the court?

I have no clue. Maybe they keep some spare Qur'aans on hand or something.

The funny thing about Ararat is that the modern mountain of Ararat has no connection with biblical Ararat where Noah landed. I know this because one friend of mine who works in Bible translations told me that. The modern Ararat was named so only in medieval times after the Biblical mountain, placed in nowadays unknown place. He is Armenian himself, this friend, and Orthodox christian at that, but it doesn't stop him from laughing each time when some people, especially Armenians, rejoice after finding "remains of the Arch" in modern Ararat.

The funny things about races is that there is no independant groups of people from modern biological point of view. In the end of 19 and beg. of 20 centuries it was beleived that there are 3 (later 4) "major races". And hence "racist theories" emerged. But the following researches showed that there are a lot of transitional forms between races, almost smooth gradient everywhere. Besides the different features are spread differently. If to divide people, for example, by blood groups, there will be one distinction, and, say native Indians and Asians are more close. But if we try to divide them by haemoglobin groups, there will be another distinction, and, say, Asians are more close to Africans and more distant from native Indians and so on.

Originally Posted by Pravit

By the way, how do you refer to people from the Caucusus in American English?

Those darn Commies!

Back a bit, it was asked how New Zealand and Australia deal with the term Caucasian.It's used purely for white dudes, including Ruskies.Not asiatic Ruskies, though.It's just for physical descriptions, not really authenticity of racial reference.If you're Italian, ooh, you make just make the Caucasian cut.Usually they'll just say "The suspect is of olive complexion".As for Arabs, well the media just loves puplically humiliating the Arabic community.If they found out a white, red-haired, freckle-faced aussie carrying a surfboard had an Arabic great grand-pa, they'd say "An Arabic man has been held in custody".

I've been wondering for some time, do Muslims swear on Bible when witnessing in the court?

You dont HAVE to swear on the Bible, many atheists swear on a copy of the constitution.

BTW Whenever promted to give my ethnicity, I used to always check Native American. Lately though I have noticed Native American to be taken off the list and replaced with American Indian, (Im definately white, but Im a native of America).
Its been a while but I really dont remember if Arab was on there or not. I know that on tests I have taken, that hispanic, Black (not of hispanic decent), Asian, American Indian and Pacific Islander (I still have no idea who this refers to, Hawaiians?) were on the list. Those are the only races I remember being on, I will be taking the SAT soon so I will try and remember.

Originally Posted by krs240

You dont HAVE to swear on the Bible, many atheists swear on a copy of the constitution.

btw - In the United Kingdom the Oaths Act 1978 gives precedence to Christianity, but proper respect is paid to all religious beliefs. The holy book of people from any community should be available: most demand will be for the Gita, the Qur’an and the Sunder Gutka. The Oaths Act 1978 allows witnesses to choose between swearing an oath or making a solemn affirmation: a solemn affirmation is of the same force and effect as an oath.

Again, in the UK, the most common wording of the oath is:
‘I swear by [substitute Almighty God/Name of God (such as Allah) or the name of the holy scripture] that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.’

And the most common wording for making an affirmation is:
‘I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.’

I can imagine

I swear by Supreme Being...
I swear by Guru Granth Sahib...
I swear by the Guiding Spirit of the Universe
I swear by the Imaginary Antropomorphic Being, Pesonifying all the Good Intentions...
I swear by Mickey-Mouse...
I swear by Satan ... (if it is a satanist)
I swear by the memory of Hitler...


Really, I think it's a kind of a remnant of a distant medieval past, why should they need to swear by something at all? Isn't the phrase "I swear to tell the truth" not enough"? Together with modern p. correctness it makes a highly ridiculous mixture.