This is an archive of past discussions about White Americans. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion
I've substantially redone the article, based on discussions with user Bfraga. I've retooled it mostly as a discussion of the concept used by the US Census. Other uses of the term -- such as the generic "white" -- are treated well in other articles.--Citynoise17:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
No real Encyclopedia would have an article with this title, and even if they did, the content would not be so awful.
I wasn't sure where to post this in the talk page... In the Mexican/Mexican-American section, someone asked for a citation regarding the Mexican Repatriation movement during the Great Depression. I myself am not certain of how to remove the citation request, but there is a Wikipedia article about the movement in question. -Amavel09:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Question for Wikipedia powers-that-be: what on earth is the average person going to think when they see that the article on African Americans is protected and that on white Americans isn't? Some may think it implies that it is assumed that the powers-that-be assume that whites are more prone to racist vandalsim. Others may assume that racist vandalism against whites is OK, but not against blacks. Surely, if Wikipedia wants to live up to its 'open' reputation without hypocrisy, it should just try to do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.23.13 (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
If I were African American, I would feel a bit annoyed that there is only one article on 'African Americans', i.e. no article on 'black Americans', while whites have both 'European American' and 'white American'. This is difficult to rectify since, as I stated above, 'black American' is protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.23.13 (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
1) At least I'm a troll that can spell and takes note of the 'no personal attacks' instruction.
2) I think it's a valid question to ask why a page is protected - that is something that I as a normal user cannot change.
3) This is a dis-kush-unn, which means that it's a place where things get dis-cussed. Un-der-stand?
Apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew schaug (talk • contribs) 14:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
AFD debate
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Basketball World Cup. US vs Argentina for Bronze medal.
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Needless to say how some/many Americans die to present themselves as a white country, while like so much to present others as non-white, for example all Hispanics and all Hispanic countries as a rule. Watch the game on the 2nd of September 2006. It is very funny to see white America play versus non-white Hispanics. By the way, they won the bronze medal. Tomorrow is the final: Spain/Greece. Veritas et Severitas13:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
What about Hispanics?
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
Often I have to see how the term Hispanic is used in the US with non-white/non-European connotations or as if Hispanics were just newly arrived aliens in the country. In fact they were there much before and have been there much longer than the rest of Americans.
Then we have the following:
1. Hispanic refers obviousy to a huge group of people from different countries.
2. These peoples are bonded together by their language and culture.
3. These peoples come from countries with very diverse racial make-ups and which derive from the Spanish Empire, which by the way included almost the entire US, which was for centuries part of this Empire under the name of New Spain. Yes, very funny, is it not? Almost the entire US were part of New Spain!.
But the most funny thing is the following:
Hispanics are not considered white as a rule of thumb in the US, as if the US was a country
whiter than some Hispanic American Countries like Argentina or Uruguay, which is not.
Then we have the mother country for all Hispanics, Spain.
So, what is up with Spaniards, are they Hispanic or not?. Are they white or not?.
Well, they are Hispanic all right, in the same way that the English are Anglos.
So, we have a group of Hispanics, who are responsible for the name itself (Hispanic comes from Hispania and Hispania is Latin for Spain) who were the colonial power in the US for centuries and who happen to be white/European. White? Well, some people say that Southern Europeans are not that white. Let us see:
If you are not familiar with genetic anthropology note that R1b is the oldest and most common genetic family in Europe, and where does it show the highest concentration? In Spain.
But if you do not have enough with Haplogroups, and want more genetic loci tested, let us see:
Well, this Oxford article takes into acount 8 genetic loci, quite complete indeed. Spain is refered to as IberiaS.
What is the result? Again, Spain has the highest concentration of Native European genes, called Basque genes in this study and Iberian genes in other studies, followed closely by the Britons, the Portuguese and the North Italians.
Conclusion:
The fathers of all Hispanics happen to be the whitest/most European people in Europe. As a result, there are a lot of Hispanics that are whiter than those who think themselves as the genuine white people/European-Americans in the US. And all this according to serious, rigorous genetic science, not to concepts and ideas that are sometimes close to mental retardation. Veritas et Severitas 20:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC
Oh, please. The Spaniards are not "the most white" race in Europe. That does not even make sense. It defies logic in numerous ways. Besides, "whiteness" is such a subjective thing. Face it, no amount of genetic research can determine how "white" you are.
Well, quite a rigorous and scientific contribution. It seems that you just do not like scientific findings because they contradict your preconceived views of reality, do you?. Well get used to these new findings, because they are coming fast at you. What about the other comments, they are also my invention, right? By the way, please use a USER NAME.Veritas et Severitas01:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Well actually Race is a sciological concept and not a biological phenomenon. In the present day US, all Europeans, whether Anglo Saxon, Saxon or Slavic are White. There have been many theories on who is more European than who over the centuries- see Nordic theory for an exmaple. However, in the US there are currently no discriminatory guidelines being to differentiate made between a Czech, a Swede, or a Spainarid in regards to that individual's race. Remember that this is a sciological construct that has little or nothing to do with actual biology. BTW: Britons are not one people; Celtics, Welsh, Scotish and Anglo-Saxon are all different ethnic groups-the Anglo Saxon are for example the descendants of the Saxons and Jutes. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review!18:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Isn't a lot of this article about how the term is used and not about genetics? As a European I find the distinction between people of Spanish descent and people of, say, Italian descent (though I may be wrong) baffling. Admittedly many, if not all, racial groupings and their social consequences are equally baffling, so this is a slight point; however, this is essentially the thrust of my argument. Proving that people of Hispanic descent score high on a "whiteness" index seems to me beside the point as one ought not to discriminate against anyone, wherever they sit on such an index, and yet people do. Pointing out that Hispanics are really "white" is just yards away from saying "don't discriminate against them, genetics proves they're like us--save it for those people over there".
Which, of course, is not what you're saying, but may be why it's worth having an article on what people consider white to mean, as that's what has an effect. The genetics perhaps belongs in an article defining [caucasian]. Andrewwyld01:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Interesting point. The distinctions are sociological and for a long time during US history being White has meant facing fewer obstacles en-route to success. As being White used to make being successful easier, people have always tried to portait themselves as White. Of course, things have changed and Spaniards seem to be as much part of main stream American society as any "Teutonic" or "WASP." As for Hispanics, racial inequity continues (to a lesser degree than in the past though) and Latinos tend to earn less than their White countreparts for doing the same work with the same qualifications. Hopefully that will change soon, but until then I, as a Social Scientist, would not be suprised to see some Hispanics or other minorities trying to make themselves appear "Whiter." As for genetics, they belong in the article on Caucasiod race as that is one of the few biological "races." Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS03:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyone of any European ancestry, whether it be Spanish, British, German, or whatever, is considered White. Spanish people are also Hispanic. Hispanic is not a race, it's an ethnicity; there are White Hispanics, Black Hispanics, American Indian Hispanics, and even Asian Hispanics. In Hispanic countries, such as Cuba, people are classified as either "White" or "Black". A Cuban immigrates to the U.S. and they're race is still the same; it doesn't change to "Hispanic". The term "Hispanic" only refers to the country of origin. Just like you wouldn't consider Irish a race, you wouldn't consider Hispanic a race either. Rhythmnation200420:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Racial classification is formed either out of or as a 'reaction' to racism. If only governments would stop thinking they have the power to declare such-and-such a race or language, instead of leaving such things to anthropologists and linguists. It is interesting to note that the government of the US thinks that blacks, Mexicans, and other groups need politically correct hyphenated terms to describe them. And some of these terms just show sheer ignorance: an American of Georgian descent (from Georgia in the Caucasus, a member of the Caucasian group) is considered a 'Georgian-American', not a 'Caucasian-American'. This is just a symptom of an aspect of American English that other English-speaking countries find irksome: Americans love showing off with long words, and they GET THEM WRONG. Only an American couuld have come up with the idea of saying 'Negatory' over the airwaves. (To be fair, some theories blame the 'Caucasian' usage on New Zealand). However, the really offensive thing is that Mexicans and others were considered 'corrupted' by the large wallop of Indian (or is that Native American/First Nation People-oid?) heritage in their genes. The euphemism clearly had to bring out their 'better' (i.e., European) side: the Spanish side. The fathers of all Hispanics are NOT the whitest in Europe, but who cares? The Basques may have been in Europe the longest, but they are not as 'white' as the Scandinavians, for example. And most Spaniards themselves have a huge wallop of Moor in them. Add to that the fact that there is a huge wallop of Uto-Aztecan, Mayan and so on in the average Mexican, one finds that Mexican Americans are only part 'white'.
Spain was only the colonial power of a Western lump of the US, by the way. And the 'United States' itself was originally formed out of British colonies, so it's a bit rich calling Spain 'the' colonial power. France had a huge lump as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew schaug (talk • contribs) 14:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
White as "Anglo" versus Hispanic, with non-white connotations.
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
More interesting stuff about the term Hispanic. As I have already expressed, the term Hispanic comes from Spain, and is related to Spanish people. In the US the term white has often been used with “anglo” connnotations, that is, coming from England, and then, from the British Isles.
OK, let us see further:
As I have already pointed out, in addition to the many studies that have been previously done pointing in the same direction, like the following one published by Oxford University Press, in which surprising genetic similarities can be seen between Britons and Spaniards (Spain is IberiaS) , in a genetic piece of research that takes inot account up to 8 genetic loci, including mitocondrial, autosomal and Y-Chromosome DNA. See:
Now we have another Oxford book whose reference has been just published two days ago and is appearing all over the British Isles in different newspapers, in which the origins of most Britons seem to be getting clearer and clearer and astonishingly very different from what it was previously thought.
It is also interesting in relation to the similarities between the Celtic areas of Britain and England.
I canot open the entire article from here, but it continues like this:
A team from Oxford University has discovered that the Celts, Britain's indigenous people, are descended from a tribe of Iberian fishermen who crossed the Bay of Biscay 6,000 years ago. DNA analysis reveals they have an almost identical genetic "fingerprint" to the inhabitants of coastal regions of Spain, whose own ancestors migrated north between 4,000 and 5,000BC.
The discovery, by Bryan Sykes, professor of human genetics at Oxford University, will herald a change in scientific understanding of Britishness.
People of Celtic ancestry were thought to have descended from tribes of central Europe. Professor Sykes, who is soon to publish the first DNA map of the British Isles, said: "About 6,000 years ago Iberians developed ocean-going boats that enabled them to push up the Channel. Before they arrived, there were some human inhabitants of Britain but only a few thousand in number. These people were later subsumed into a larger Celtic tribe... The majority of people in the British Isles are actually descended from the Spanish."
Professor Sykes spent five years taking DNA samples from 10,000 volunteers in Britain and Ireland, in an effort to produce a map of our genetic roots.
Research on their "Y" chromosome, which subjects inherit from their fathers, revealed that all but a tiny percentage of the volunteers were originally descended from one of six clans who arrived in the UK in several waves of immigration prior to the Norman conquest.
The most common genetic fingerprint belongs to the Celtic clan, which Professor Sykes has called "Oisin". After that, the next most widespread originally belonged to tribes of Danish and Norse Vikings. Small numbers of today's Britons are also descended from north African, Middle Eastern and Roman clans.
These DNA "fingerprints" have enabled Professor Sykes to create the first genetic maps of the British Isles, which are analysed in Blood of the Isles, a book published this week. The maps show that Celts are most dominant in areas of Ireland, Scotland and Wales. But, contrary to popular myth, the Celtic clan is also strongly represented elsewhere in the British Isles.
"Although Celtic countries have previously thought of themselves as being genetically different from the English, this is emphatically not the case," Professor Sykes said.
And interesting also the book "THE ORIGIN OF THE BRITISH - A Genetic Detective story" (2006) by the British professor Oppenheimer, in which he establish that over 90% of Irish gens come from Iberia (Spain) and also over 60% of English gens....so British and Spanish (from Spain) are basically the same with not much differences, above all Irish and Spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.183.196 (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
In short, it seems that Spaniards had acquired a taste for boat bulding and ocean going much before they arrived in America.
It also seems that the term Hispanic, with the sense of relating to Spain or the Spanish, is in fact much broader than it was previously thought, and it actually should include the English and other Britons. Life is full of surprises, is it not? Veritas et Severitas14:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Consider that celts are not Anglo-Saxon, a term that refers to the descendants of the Angles, Saxons and Normans who invaded Britannica. The manner in which the term "White" has been and is used in the US has and perhaps continued to be wrong by genetic terms. Race is far more of a soial and genetic phenomenon. The fact that many English are related to Hispanics does really not suprise me. Few people actually look into the migration of European peoples and thus often only know half the story behind a racial term or the genetics of "race." Concerning racial termonology is seems, that the conotation and denotation (as defined by scientific evidence) often differ. Anyways, great and interesting research. Signaturebrendel19:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The ultimate origin of the Proto-Germanic peoples is Denmark and Southern Sweden. I believe there are some maps which show a tiny bit of the German coastline, but that isn't Northern Germany. Then, if I read correctly, it says that what nativists around 1800 thought of Germans was incorrect because of the Nordic theory? Rex20:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Not quite. First, yes there are some maps that show parts of Schlewsig Holstein, which extends onto the penninsula of Denmark. The idea is as follows. In 19th century America, Europeans seens as non-Germanic "Swathy Whites" (e.g. Italians, Irish etc...) were discriminated against based on thought and logical related to the the Nordic theory. Meaning that nativists at the time based their White-on-White discrimination on the nordic theory. It was, however, logically not possible to use the nordic theory in order to discriminate against Germans. (See the map to the right) The nordic theory would allow for the logical discimination of many Irishmen, Scottsmen and espcially Southern Europeans. To quote the Article:
“
Benjamin Franklin proposed a clear distinction between "white" Europeans and "swarthy" Europeans, stating that immigration to the newly-born United States should favor the "white" Northern Germans and Englishmen rather than the "swarthy" Southern Germans, Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes.
”
Now, his definition of White, makes those whom he considered non-Germanic, "Swathy White." This logic, however, cannot justify discrimination against Germans, as many are part Germnic peoples that pre-date the Anglo Saxon people (e.g. Saxon themselves)-Franklin mention this when he expressed his desire for more Saxon to immigrate to the US. Overall discrimination by nativists in the US was based on the logic of the Nordic theory (that's why Benjamin Franklin is mention in the Nordic theory article). I hope this clarifies what the statement you delted meant. That said, there is probably a better way to express the ideas that I just mentioned, so I would be grateful for any suggestions. SignaturebrendelNow under review!21:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Not with Nordist theory, apart from being a ridiculous theory it's also over a centurly later.Rex12:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Well. Yes it a ridiculous theory, but so were all race theories in 18th and 19th century. Here is an overview of discrimination in the US at the time:
“
From the 17th century on, as Northern European countries became more powerful, Northern peoples began to argue for their own superiority. Benjamin Franklin proposed a clear distinction between "white" Europeans and "swarthy" Europeans, stating that immigration to the newly-born United States should favor the "white" Northern Germans and Englishmen rather than the "swarthy" Southern Germans, Russians, Swedes, French, and Italians.
”
Americans during that time distinguished between non-teutonic, non-Germanic whites and swathy whites. The paralells between the nordic theory and nativist discrimination become even more evident when looking at the map on the nordiv theory page (above). Franklin may have very well influenced the later rise of the Nordic theory. Now, logically, if you disciminate against non-Germnic Europeans, you would have hard time disrciminating against most Germans-that's why Germans in early American were put in two categories-those from Northern Germany (namely Saxons) and southern, swathy Germans. How about we state something about "Nordic theory-like discrimination" instead of plainly stating nordic theory. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review!15:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The Nordic theory also makes some outrageous origin claims, I suggest we do not refer to it at all and just not Germans from the South were discrimated.
Rex16:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course, there is never really any logic behind discrimination. Hatemonger usually isn't rational, much less based on Anthropolical fact. The whole idea of swathy whites and teutenoic whites is ludicrous, especially as most English people are related to the French people. The thing about discimination against Germans in early America is that it is quite difficult to explain. Germans have been coming to North America since 1608. Those who arrived in the 17th century were the same who dsicriminated against new German arrivals in the 18th century (as I said hatemonger isn't rational). Germans usually faced less discrimination than non-Whites, the Irish, or Italians. Especially as many are protestant and of Saxon dissent- something Franklin considered when making up his mind on whom to hate and love. So with Germans, it dependet partially on where they were from and when they came. Some Germans were old stock, some weren't. Some were seen as teutonic White, some as swathy white. Of course Franklin totally contradicts himself when he wants to disciminate against Swedes, who are obviously a Germanic people-more so than the English. Anyways, I tried to explain the complicated equation on which discrimination of Germans dependet in a single sentence (I should have probably known that that wasn't going to work). The idea of Anglo-Saxons (or Saxons) being superior to say, Franks, Normans, or Jutes on the basis of being more Germanic is complete nonsense. Yet, this false notion was present in America for well over a century. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review!16:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I just think it isn't logical to prove Benjamin Franklins views wrong with the Nordic theory, which is total crap as well.Rex21:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
No, no. I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not advocating the nordic theory or what Franklin said. I am saying the Franklins views are very similar to the nordic theory. That's why I mentioned it-the crap in the nordic theory is similar to the crap Frankling wrote. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review!01:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I see. Still I think the Nordic theory goes a bit to far to be compared to Franklins views. I mean I doubt Franklin thought the "Nordic race" originally came from Tibet.Rex11:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not saying Franklin's writings and the nordic theory are exactely the same, I was using the nordic theory to describe the discrimination based on North/South European that was reflected in Franklin's writings. The more I think about, using the nordic theory was probably not the best choice. SignaturebrendelNow under review!11:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
"Benjamin Franklin proposed a clear distinction between "white" Europeans and "swarthy" Europeans, stating that immigration to the newly-born United States should favor the "white" Northern Germans and Englishmen rather than the "swarthy" Southern Germans, Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes."
In fact Franklin was an idiot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.0.129.146 (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
More important is the study made recently (2006) by the British Stephen Oppenheimer in his book "THE ORIGIN OF THE BRITISH - A Genetic Detective story" in which he establish that according to Genetic studies British have basically an Iberian (Spanish) ancestry...more in Ireland (over 90%), Wales and Scotland, and lower in England (but here over 60% too) So Spanish from Spain and British are basically the same people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.183.196 (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The Ralph Nader image
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have removed the Ralph Nader image from the infobox, as it is listed as a fair use image, and as a result, is not legal to use here. User:Zoe|(talk)06:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The third paragraph begins with Perhaps because white Americans often identify simply as white and tend not to identify themselves as a sub-group of Americans. . This is not a sentence. What is this trying to say? User:Zoe|(talk)06:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed quite an unclear phrase. While I didn't write it-I think I can explain. Many White Americans do not think of themselves in racial terms as much as do some other racial groups. In other words, Whites often don't see themselves as White Americans but simply as just Americans. This supposedly is opposed to African Americans or Hispanics for whom race is an allegedly greater part of their identity. I hope that clears things up. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review!06:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Is there an American race? My father's side of the family cannot trace its ancestry out of America, only going as far back as Georgia. It seems that classifying him as Southern American or Appalachian might be more fitting. 7.2% of American ancestry is listed as simply American on the graph on this page; is this implying these people see themselves as belonging to a Anglo-American race? Is 400 years not enough time for a Anglo-American race to have evolved, or at least coalesced? Personally, I see a biological distinction between myself and my European origins. Terry19:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
No officially there isn't an American race and if you're White you are most likely of European origin (See European American). If you can't trace your father's side of the family back to Europe than you may use your mother's side. As for people reporting American as their ancestry, most of them are probably unable to trace their ancestry beyond the US (much like your father). As for Anglo-American; that is just a synonym for White-even though few Whites (8%) are acutally Anglo. Anglo, which is short for Anglo Saxon, means that your ancestors would have to be Saxon, Angles, Normans, and Jutes who migrated to Britannica during the dark ages. So, to answer your question, Whites are the descendants of Europeans; Whites who report American as their ancestry often do so simply becuase they are unable to disclose their full ancestry. BTW: the biological distinction between Americans and Europeans in nonexsistant, as most Americans have has ancestors coming from Europe as recently as the early 20th century, besides two or three centuries are not enough time for genetic differences to develop. I hope that answers your questions. Regards. SignaturebrendelNow under review!01:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The Normans were not Anglo-Saxons.They were the descendants of Vikings or the contemporary term Norsemen who were given the duchy of Normandy by the King of France in the 8th century.They intermarried with French women and become known as Normans. The Anglo-Saxons came from Northern Germany.13:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)jeanne (talk)
For foreigners it is evident there is an "American Ethnicity" as a consequence of ethnic mixture of different European and African ethnic groups. Even if the US media talks about "German-Americans", "Italian-Americans" etc....most of them have been assimilated into what clearly can be called just "American". The same happened before to the French, the Spaniards, the Germans or the English all of us a mixture of different tribes (Celts, Romans, Iberians, Scandinavians, Arabs...) Exactly in the same way that we can say that an ethnic group called "French" exist (usually with darker hair than the typical German but some lighter than the typical Spaniard) AMERICAN as an ethnic group is clearly a reality. The typical "American" group of tourists is easily recognised when they are in France, England or Germany as a different tribe looking basically as a mixture of different Germanic tribes (Germans and English basically) That group is not considered English in England or German in Germany.
The same can be said about Argentines, for example, who look basically like an Italian-Spaniard mixture but different from both of us (there is also dozens of other nations contributing to the mix) or the Brazilians who look basically like Southern Europeans with black mixture. A group of Brazilians is easily recognised in Spain or Portugal as a different tribe different from the Portuguese.
The same can be said about black Americans. They are not "Afro-Americans" anymore but AMERICANS as a consequence of the mixture of different African (and to a lesser extent white British) tribes. When a group of black Americans go to Africa (for example to Kenya, Ghana or Nigeria) they are NOT considered Africans as they don´t belong to any African tribe...they are AMERICANS.
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This article is poor in so many ways. First of all the USA has to use terms as white and black because it has not true social structure. If this new country had a true class structure based on blood lines, instead of the color of skin this ridiculous article would not even be up for a debate.
Historically this article does not discuses those who were not considered white during the 19th century and early 20th century, and are not now for political purposes now considered such.
True, the definition of White has evolved. The US does have a social structure which in the 19th and early 20th century included race as one of its core components. Today its more based on economics than anything else. Many sociologist actually like to beleive that the US has quite a complex de-facto social structure since it is one formed without actual guidelines and thresholds. Truth is, all complex societies must have an advanced social structure in order to function, inlcuding the US. You are right, however, in your assertion that the US lacks a formal social structure. SignaturebrendelNow under review!19:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
White America Article
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This article needs to be changed in such as way as to correct it. Some part of it sound as if it was placed together in a 1950s America child's textbook. Furthermore a great deal of this is subjective and there are not enough facts to support it. I could understand if this article agreed with the regular backward and uneducated view in which Americans view race. Moreover it lacks the capacity to even do this effectively. There is no historical proof, nor scientific study outdated or any other kind to back up there claim. Only the USA could make such as mess as this manner of thinking. This article needs to be altered greatly. There are to many ideas in this article mixing views of the 19th,20th, and 21st centuries in such a way to slant and give a bious view to readers.
Questions?? Jews are now white, however is it not true that in the early 20th cen. they were not consider so? The one drop rule in America, if you have one drop of African blood in the USA it would make you black, by this rule how many people in the USA would be then considered black?
I am finding that a great deal of terms of being used incorrectly, this page need work.
I agree with you. One of the biggest problems with this and the white article is that people continue to cling to defunct 19th and early 20th century concepts and ignore 21st century advances in the anthropological field that comes hand in hand with genetics. Veritas et Severitas15:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Deleted arbitrary map.
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Could you make some suggestions as to how we should improve the map. I think it provides users with helpful information where in general White Americans come from. France was colored the same as Scandinavia becuase it may (of course all this is arbitrary) fall under the "Teutonic European" category. Another possibility, the most objective IMHO would be to use linguistic attributes for colors. One color for Germanic Europe, another for Latin Europe, another for Slavic Europe, etc... What do you think? SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS02:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that if we want to make differences in Europe, they have to be as you say, Latin, Germanic, Slavic, etc. One caveat is that the article is about a racial concept. We do not live in the dark ages anymore. Population genetics tell a very different story than the traditional ones: Here you just have some examples about the ancestral relationships of Europeans. We cannot continue to speak about races here, with the connotation that race has in terms of shared ancestry, and continue to ignore 21st century genetic anthropology, population genetics and genetic archeology, that for the first time is providing scientific proof for shared ancestries in Europe and in the world:
So you'd be okay with using lingustic differences? We could use geneology, but race in the US is a sociological concept rather than a biological one. Biologically, there is really only one race-the human race. Slight differences can be found among certain races, caucasoid, mongoloid, etc... I think as this article deals with a social concept using linguistics would be the most ideal way to determine the coloring on such a map. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS03:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
As said, I think that the linguistic concept could be an acceptable solution. I also think that a genealogy map would be a necessary complement, since race has both social and biological connotations in terms of ancestry. Veritas et Severitas13:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Etnic groups and Discrimination
Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion
Did the White Americans face prejudice, segregation, racism or any combinationof the three? If so, how and why?
Yes certain white ethnic groups such as the Irish and Jews faced severe prejudice and discrimination upon their arrival in the United States. Their treatment wasn't as bad as that of African Americans -no Jim Crow was used against whites- but hate crimes including lynchings were commited against them. Catholics also faced discrimination until well into the 20th century- in the 1960s some people thought JFK could never be elected because he was an Irish-Catholic. The reason is the same as that of any discriminatory action. In general people feel threatened by people of different cultures. Additionally, economic competition for low-level jobs increased discimination (the same as today when nativisits state that Mexican immigrants are "taking their jobs.") Of course, things are completely different today but looking back on history you will find many white ethnic groups having been discriminated against. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS18:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
"White" is an obsolete, racist term. The correct term is Caucasian. The article name should be changed.
Acutally Caucasian is not the correct term and some persons interpret it as applying only to persons form the caucasus region. The US Census Bureau uses the term "White," another commonly found PC version is "European American." Also keep in mind that race is soley a social and not a natural construct. It is made up and thus any racial terms is going to be somewhat "racist." Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS03:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Alright I am of mixed American Indian and White heritage, I am in fact descended from Hispanics(my great great grandmother was from Castillia de la vieja) I have seen pictures of her and she was dark, I have some pictures of her son, my great grandfather, and he was dark, and my grandfather, still living is the only person in my family lacking any Indian blood, and he is in fact the darkest person in all of my family. With that said, he still knows he's White, and has never referred to himself as Hispanic. He doesn't believe he should have to. I understand exactly where he's coming from if someone speaks the same language as the majority of the population, has the same education, the same cultural values, et cetra as the majority of the population, they should not be considered to be part of an Ethnic group unless they want to be. As for "Hispanic" leaders & Hispanic people seperating themselves from Whites, I honestly believe that it is only this way socially because of the American media God Bless209.133.132.7521:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Well everybody is part of an ethnic group. German-Americans, English-Americans incld. WASPs are all ethnic groups. There are great diviations within mainstream society so nobody really has the culutral values of the mainstream, as the mainstream itself consists of a diverse set of values and members (Nancy Pelosi vs. Dick Cheney). That said, race is a social construct and for much of its history has not been based on rational thought (Rational thought tells us that we're all human beings and race doesn't exsist outside our minds). Currently White is often used as synonym for Euro-American, a term that technically applies to many hispanics as they may very well be the descendants of Europeans. As for culture, race isn't the best way to group people- Both an upper middle class Jewish Manhattan attorney and a teenage, working class, English-American mom form Kentucky are both White, yet there are huge culutral differences between them. Overall, race in contemporary American society is based on self-identification, acceptance by other members of society and physical characeteristics. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS21:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
It was, I'm just saying that we all are members of an ethnic group and that the American mainstream is diverse itself consisting of many difference ethnic groups and members of different races. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS23:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Just some thoughts. I do not know if sooner or later these thoughts should be included in these ethnic articles, but we all know that these "racial' classifications in the US and English speaking countries come from the past, creating psycological barriers among groups. I find it embarrassing that developed, democratic nations continue to do this officially. Of course it does not mean that racism is going to disappear if these classifications are done away with, but these classification just help perpetuate and reinforce the separation of people in our minds. Brendel, I know that you are of German descend, like me. You know very well what it means in Germany to try and say : I am white. It is considered just extremely racist. People are just referred to according to their nationalities. Just imagine if the German government decided to do that in official documents. It would be a scandal. And you know that that position is shared in the rest of Europe, with some few exceptions like the British Isles, who use the same values and mentality as the US in this respect. And it is not only Europe. It is not done virtually in the entire world, even in places where people of very different backgrounds live together. It is a shameless heritage from the Eurocentric racist past. I have said it more than once. I do not understand how Americans do not see it and go about as if it was normal to classify people like that, even since they are small children in official documents. They are stigmatizing people, especially in a multiracial society where a lot of people do not even know anymore how to classify themselves. There are many ways to fight for the weakest ones in a society. Certainly racial classification is not the best one, as some want other people to believe. For me Americans are just Americans. The constant efforts of American society, their media and their politicians (official policy) to say: "Well, no, I am not like that one, I am from a different race" are shameless remains of the worst bigotry and the rest of the world can see that. Veritas et Severitas19:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you. Race should be abolished and we should stop keeping record of race in America. You make an interesting point that "...if the German government decided to do that in official documents. It would be a scandal." The problem is that race is so deeply embedded in American society, it is the "heritage from the Eurocentric racist past." So, we can't pretend that the concept of race doesn't exsist, because it is hard-wired in the minds of too many Americans. As someone you has spent a lot of time studying the history and current status of minority groups in American society, I often scratch my head in wonder of the monstrosities human beings are able to inflict upon each other (e.g. Slavery and now the fence on the border to Mexico). Perhaps some day not just Americans, but humans in general will realize that we are all the same: human beings. Until that day however, the US and several other societies will continue to feature the "shameless remains of the worst bigotry [with] the rest of the world [being able to] see that." BTW: Your thought should definitely be included in this and other race articles-you'll just need to find some sources. Regards, Signaturebrendel19:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Tolerance of other cultures is a virtue. Just because one culture sees it as bigotry does not mean another culture means it as bigotry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.229.204.129 (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
Polynesians, the fine people that they are, have never been discriminated against in thhe US. Also affirmative action is a form of discriminates against white people.Rbaish11:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Affirmative action does not discriminate against Whites. White women have profited the greatest from the institution of affirmative action programs. Regards, Signaturebrendel20:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Now that we have established that brendel has an anti-white agenda, let’s make some points.
1. There is no data that shows that white women have benefited the most from AA. That was propaganda started by Sharpton and Jackson. It’s not true.
2. To deny that AA doesn’t discriminate is just sad.
3. Polynesians have never had a Government policy that detracted from their rights.
The sentence is racist and untrue. It should go.Rbaish22:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how reporting the facts of history is being an "anti-white." Unless discrimination is something that is pro-white... (?)futurebird22:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
It is not, check income stats. White males make 48% more than White females and far more than any other race (except Asian males). Congress is nearly all White male, as are corperate board rooms. It is very clear that White males have suffered the least amounts of discrimination. Besides I have reputable sources for that assertion. I have an "anti-white agenda"???? I'm German and a White male myself. Also Polynesians arn't always considered White, they are usually considered Asian. Signaturebrendel22:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Well brendel, I hope someday your guilt and self-loathing subsides. I also hope that someday you learn not to deviate from the topic. The topic is discrimination. AA discriminates. Income data is not job data. You are not reporting facts. Stating that whites have historically been subjected to the least amount of discrimination is HIGHLY subjective. Polynesians have never been concidered Asian. Mongoloids, yes. Asians Never. What is upsetting is that you haven’t entered this conversation honestly. Rbaish23:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Please remember that there is a difference between the sociological constructed races, currently used in the US (e.g. White, Asian, Black) and the biological races (e.g. Mongoloid, Caucasoid). This article pertains to the sociological concept that is Whitness in America. True, most Whites are also Caucasoid, but race in America has and continues to be a social construct. As for discrimination. Consider that when this country was young only White men cold vote and were full citizens. (see Futurebird's comment below) Signaturebrendel00:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The key word here is historically. Affirmative action is a relatively recent invention. Regardless of its flaws or merits, weather we choose to see it as "discrimination" or "remediation" it will not alter the simple fact that historically white people in the USA have faced far less discrimination and racial prejudice. Or are you saying that this isn't true? That makes no sense. futurebird00:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
AA started in 1961. That was 46 years ago. How much time is needed to have a racist policy be “historically significant"? Or because it discriminates against whites, it does not qualify? The Polynesian is an example of a socially constructed race. Why are they exempt? You are also not considering discrimination against white ethnic groups like the Irish, Italians, and Germans. What I am saying that I disagree with the topic statement, and I have brought nothing but objectivity to the conversation. But I really have just one question. Is it objective to state that one group has been less discriminated than another? The sentence does not belong. Rbaish01:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is. Whites have faced discrimination but less than say African Americans. Blacks were enslaved, denied the right to citizenship, denied the right to own land, marry white women, etc... The Chinese exclusion act probibited them from even coming here, while Europeans faced an open-door immigration policy. The discrimination faced by Whites is less than that of minorities, that is a referenced and true statement and is objective enough for inclusion in this article. Signaturebrendel01:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Blacks are not part of the discussion. If you want to pine about blacks, got to the black American page. This statement is unreferenced, false, and gone.
Of course, Blacks are part of the discussion. If I state that Whites have faced less discrimination than other races, I need to talk about those other races. It's a comparison which in this article will involve other races. I understand that you are very conservative but accusing me of "White guilt" and trying to deny the obvious is not how we do things on Wikipedia. Respect your editors and stay objective please. Whether or not you think Affirmative action is okay is really not the issue here. The statement is referenced with two authoratative and commonly used college textbooks. Regards, Signaturebrendel02:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally, i have no opinion in regards to this article. I am just here to give you the warning that, if you don't agree on a point, please talk about it, and not edit war. I'd also like to point out that if you think you can edit war and avoid the 3RR, you are mistaken. I believe people have been blocked before for trying stuff like this. [2]
Denying the obvious is exactly what you are doing. Blacks are not apart of the argument. Polynesians – NEVER DISCRIMINATED. Your references are bogus and opinionated. Maybe I should start citing AMREN. AA is not the issue, but it is part of my argument. White women were also discriminated against, Jews were discriminated against. You must articulate how the Polynesian has suffered through more discrimination than the white before I quit.
I must do nothing of the sort. Yes Whites were discriminated against but not to the extend of Blacks. Obviously Whites (including women and the Irish) haven't faced the same disrcimination as Blacks or Asians! My sources are widely respected and use by colleges from coast to coast. I making an RfC! Signaturebrendel03:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
So, the only races are white, black and Asian? I can’t believe what I’m hearing. Polynesians are often not even considered white? What does that mean? I didn’t see that in the Census. Rbaish03:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
So, I will change the labeling of my argument from Polynesian to Pacific Islander. Pacific Islanders were never discriminated against either. Rbaish03:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes they were. Filipinos & Samoans.
“
"Like other non-whites, Filipinos were racially discriminated against and stereotyped. They were often called half-civilized (or half-savage), uneducated, worthless, and unscrupulous. Racism against the Filipinos was strong since they were essentially viewed as taking the jobs of the white workers as well as their white women. They were accused of luring white women, hence an anti-miscegenation law was passed. They were also called wasteful for their alleged ostentatious display of lifestyle, mainly clothing. Filipinos were denounced as being prone to crime and violence. They were accused of living in substandard conditions where as many as twenty people slept in one room. In reality, though, these statements were mere racial prejudices. Filipinos were mostly men and the gender ratio between Filipino men and women in California was like 14:1. Filipino men sought the company of white women. Low wages, on the other hand, consigned Filipinos to poor living conditions since they could not afford better accommodation. In some cases, the housing accommodation provided by the growers was substandard." [3]
”
Bring me authortative sources that state Pacific Islanders were discriminated against less than Whites. (No Heritage Fundation crap please) Signaturebrendel03:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
This paragraph is highly misleading and one-sided. First, there is no caveat or alternative given to the Hines' theory. Anyone with common sense knows that this is only one out of a host of explanations for the wealth of whites in the U.S. But this paragraph is presented almost as though it were a settled fact. If you want to open the can of worms regarding WHY whites have more wealth, it has to be presented evenhandedly. Education, culture, resources, etc., could all be causes. The phenomenon of poorer peoples immigrating more often than wealthy peoples is likely a large factor. Continued disparities after hundreds of years suggest that other factors are at play. Etc., etc. It even could be that Whites have some redeeming qualities, such as smarts or industriousness! Otherwise, simply note the facts and leave it at that; don't introduce one-sided views about the cause, to make it seem that Whites are not entitled in any measure to their achievements, unless you balance it out. 3/14/07
"It even could be that Whites have some redeeming qualities, such as smarts or industriousness"- are your freakin' kidding me?! Skin color has no effect on "smarts" or personal characteristics. (The only people who could seriously argue this would perhaps be David Duke and Rush Limbough-hardly reliable sources!) There is also no such thing as a "White culture"- there are a wide variety of cultures among upper middle and upper class whites. If you can find a theory that contradicts Hine's theory in another college textbook then go ahead and add it. But just becuase we don't have a "counter theory" is no reason to remove this perfectly valid theory. It is clearly not stated as a fact and provides one perfectly fine and valid theory. Signaturebrendel06:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It would at least be helpful to point out that Asians make more than Whites, which their theory completely fails to explain, and point to the personal or household income in the united states articles, which show this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.4.116.14 (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
Some of these statements are absolutely ridiculous, "It even could be that Whites have some redeeming qualities, such as smarts or industriousness." The sad thing is that statement is an attempt to be fair to white people. I must point out that the humanity of white people doesn't stop with their industriousness or smarts. There appears to be an agenda by some to dismiss the humanity of white people. putting "people of color" on one side and "white people" on the other. In the process we are overlooking a few critical things about the human condition. The very claim that Middle Easterners and Latinos are not "accepted into the cultural mainstream" is a highly subjective opinion, one impossible to define or prove. There is no such thing as a "mainstream" and if there was, it certainly wouldn't be "all white". However popular this line of "social theory", these are superficial observations and highly subjective. This entire discussion, like the article, is generalized and we should be cautious to remain neutral in writing a Wikipedia article.Beatmakerz (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Request for Comment
Latest comment: 17 years ago18 comments7 people in discussion
User:Rbaish is contesting the statement that White Americans have historically faced the least discrimination of any racial demographic and have as a result had more time to built up wealth. The sentence is stating that Whites have over the course of history suffered the least discimination and cites two widely used college textbooks published by Pearson as references. User:Rbaish states that both textbooks are, despite their reputablity, "opinionated" and seems under the impression that I am suffer from "[White] guilt and self-loathing." The sentence is nonetheless referenced using two authoritative textbooks. Regards, Signaturebrendel03:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Brendel is insisting that a subjective political view be included in the article. It should be removed. Rbaish03:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
You mean a historical fact like The Tuskegee Airmen never lost a bomber? The proof of your bias is the avoidance of the core question – How have Pacific Islanders been subject to more discrimination than whites? Rbaish03:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Well they were denied citizenship and denied the right to marry White women. Look here and see the statement below taken from here.
The question of whether Filipinos should be prohibited from marrying white women reached the California Court of Appeals in 1933 in the guise of the query as to whether Filipinos should be considered "Mongolian." The state in 1880 and 1905 had prohibited the licensing of marriages between "Mongolians" and "white persons" and invalidated all such marriages. Subsequent legal challenges involving the right of Filipinos to marry whites betray enormous confusion as to whether Filipinos should be classified as "Mongolian," or as a separate ethnological group, as "Malay." This racial classification was put at issue in cases where Filipino/white couples sought to marry, and who therefore asserted that Filipinos were not "Mongolians"; in a case where a mother sought to stop her daughter's marriage; in two cases where annulment of marriage was sought, one by a white woman, the other by a Filipino man; and in one case in which a prosecutor sought to void a marriage so a white wife could testify against her Filipino husband.- Boalt Ha, Univerity of California at Berkley.
Brendel, Do you really expect me to believe that Filipinos and Pacific Islanders are the same race? Do you believe this yourself? Or does your whole argument rely on an arbitrary conglomeration of ethnic groups? Anyway, banning interracial marriage is just as discriminating for whites as it is for any minority group involved. Nobody ends up with an advantage. Even so, Filipinos were subject to derogatory remarks and banned from marring whites. Big Deal. The Alien Registration Act of 1940 required 300,000 German-born U.S. resident aliens to register with the federal government and restricted their travel and property ownership rights. Under the still active Alien Enemy Act of 1798, the United States government interned nearly 11,000 German Americans between 1940 and 1948. Some of these were United States citizens. Civil rights violations occurred. 500 were arrested without warrant. Others were held without charge for months or interrogated without benefit of legal counsel. Convictions were not eligible for appeal. An unknown number of "voluntary internees" joined their spouses and parents in the camps and were not permitted to leave. Affirmative action discrimination policies have been in effect for 46 years. Clearly this outweighs any Filipino discrimination.Rbaish12:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Filipinos are members of the Pacific Islander race. If you want to call the Racial categories designed by the United States Department of Commerce "an arbitrary conglomeration of ethnic groups"- then go ahead. But your entire argument relies on calling two respectable college textbooks opinionated and the US Census Bureau data "arbitrary." Also Dweight Eisehower was a German-American. Nearly 1/3 of the US population was of German ancestry at the time, only a very small fraction of them were discriminated against. Besdies look at the other comments here. I have two textbooks backing me up and the RfC has shown 4 editors, including myself, stating that with those textbooks I should be able to include the disputed sentence. You are the only editor who wants the sentence out. 1 other editor would like to see the names of the authors-something that can easily be done. You have yet to produce equally relaible sources to state that Whites did not face the least discrimination. Even if do find that source, this doesn't mean you should take out the sentence, it means that you may state the opposite in a following sentence. Regards, Signaturebrendel20:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
To Rbaish. Please keep your comments relevant to this RfC. Your oppinions above are irrelevant to this discussion and to the article. Indeed your comment regarding German US citizens fallacious, this was against Germans, it does not provide evidence that White Americans as a group did not face the least amount of discrimination. Stating that some White groups were discriminated against at certain times does not address the question of overall discrimination for the whole group. In any case, if you want to contest this assertion you cannot just remove it. The criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. If you want to include a different point of view then you may do so, but this needs to be verified from a reliable source. To put it bluntly, your personal opinion is not important enough to warrant inclusion, you need to support it from an academic source. Wikipedia does not exist so editors can give their personal oppinions, it does not exist to serve as a mouthpiece for editors. You do not have the right to remove this information just because you personally disagree with it. You do have the right to give the alternative point of view, as long as you can back it up from a reliable source. I urge you to read the verifiability, no original research, neitral point of view policies and the reliable sources guideline as you seem not to be aware of these. Alun17:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment. The criterion for inclusion is verifiability not truth. If User:Rbaish disputes what two reliable sources say, then he should produce a reliable source that states the opposite, he can then include that as well, as per the verifiability and neutral point of view policies. It seems unlikely that these are not reliable sources if they are text books used in academia. This user must find a reliable source to support his claim that this statement is in dispute, otherise it is a breach of no original research. Alun07:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment. That statement looks like a broad simplification of a particularly nuanced topic. What textbooks, specifically, say this? Anyway, a direct quote from the textbook showing context would be nice. However, one way to solve this problem would be to simply add "According to Author X of Book Y..." in front of the disputed sentence. .V. -- (TalkEmail)08:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
First, it is my opinion the fine people participating in this discussion are not being objective regarding the subjectivity of the statement “White Americans have historically faced the least discrimination of any racial demographic and have as a result had more time to built up wealth”. Second, the complex nature of each race’s situation makes it impossible to qualify the effect. Also, People native to the Americas were here over ten thousand years before any Europeans. That time should count for the acquisition of wealth. So congratulations on finding a subjective statement in a college text that suits a liberal agenda (surprise, surprise). I concede to allowing the XY scenario under protest! Allowing this statement is tragic. Some of those references are over 10 years old. It does not account for the ongoing and dominating nature of affirmative action. This statement is pure vandalism, slanderous, and racist. Rbaish00:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
That's your opinion. Western civilization did get here until about 400 years ago and Native Americans were left out, the empries they did built were destroyed, their land taken away, they themselves denied citizenship. The sentence will be reinstated crediting the authors of the textbooks. BTW: Both textbooks were published after 2000 (2001 & 2005, respectively). Regards, Signaturebrendel00:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Rbaish, that comment about "People native to the Americas" aquiring wealth was out of line and ridiculous...you and everyone else know more or less what happend. Please keep comments like that to yourself. Thank You. Cali56707:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Rbaish, have you actually read any of the comments here? I'll say it again the criterion for inclusion in wikipedia is verifiability not truth. So the statement is subjective and suits a liberal agenda, so what? It's verified from a reliable source. If you dispute it all you have to do is go and find a published reliable source that claims that either this statement is untrue, or that shows that a different group has been persecuted less than the white group. I suggest that this should be quite easy. It's not good enough to claim that the source is biased, reliable sources can be biased, there's no point in trying to remove this statement as this would be a breach of wikipedia policies. If you could show that this source is unreliable then you might be able to do this, but if it is a college textbook this seems unlikely. I suggest you go and find a source that supports your point of view and put that in as well. If you read the neutral point of view policy you will see that this is exactly what you should do. I fail to understand why you don't just do that instead of complaining about something you can do nothing about. Wikipedia should present all significant minority and majority points of view, so if your point of view is significant, it should be published, so you should be able to cite it. Good luck. Alun13:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed; the practical way to deal with a dispute over a particular phrase is to use a quote. DGG23:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
If this article states that "White Americans" can be European, Middle Eastern, Hispanic, etc. why are all the pictures of White Americans of European descent? I think we should add others to balance out what the article states. After all, why say it if it's not backed up? We should have at least one of each: Euro-American, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, North African American, etc. Thank You. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.188.195.191 (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
I too think it's a good idea...but which type of people should we put? I'd be willing to help find pictures, but I don't want it to turn into a huge thing. 23:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I totally DISAGREE. You want to put in pictures based on a false statement. The truth is, those of "Middle Eastern, Hispanic" descent are not white, nor even considered white by most people. Those of European descent are, in fact, white. Sorry to burst your bubble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce1314 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. The outdated classification of what is white does not apply. Whites are of European descent. Otherwise if we were to use the broad racial classification Indians, Pakistanis, Egyptians, Iranians all belong to the Caucasoid race. "White" is a social and specific ethnic construct. Koalorka (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Pictures
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Shouldn't the "Regions with significant populations" section in the infobox read "All areas of the United States", instead of mentioning them individually? DBQer20:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Well actually you have point. Whites are found in significant concentrations in nearly all areas-there are relatively small areas (Detroit, DC, etc...) were this isn't true, but overall you're right. Signaturebrendel23:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am about to remove information from this page that is overly descriptive of ethnic groups (e.g. Iranian Americans) without describing how these characteristics related to their perceived whiteness. When doing so, I am making sure there are links to descriptive pages like Iranian Americans so that if you are just seeking information on that ethnic group it is clear where to go. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calliopejen1 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
propose split
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I propose that the historical and present definitions section should be split into a separate article named "Definitions of whiteness in the United States". As it is, the size of the article makes it unwieldy. Moreover, the focus of that section of the article is very different from the rest of the article. The census facts about white income and education are most relevant to the common conception of whiteness that exists today, not how boundaries of whiteness have been established in the past. It would also be easier to link from articles like Social interpretations of race and similar things to a more precise target. Calliopejen123:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the split. This article is so packed with the history of legal whiteness that there is little room for sociological information on White Americans. A split will allow this article to maintain its focus.----DarkTea13:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Inaccurate Census Map
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I removed the inaccurate census map, and request that if anyone can, replace it with one that is more inline with U.S racial classifications. Padishah500023:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Madeleine Albright
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Whether or not somone was born in the US really doesn't matter (Otherwise the Queen wouldn't be considered as White as Britney Spears ;-)). Besides, Albright was born in Europe which is where most Whites (or at least their ancestors) come from! That is why most are also called "Euro-American"- as in American of European descent. Signaturebrendel05:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Madeleine Albright may have been born in Europe, like all my grandparents from Scotland and Norway, but she's also of Jewish descent, which some people question whether should be classified as European White, since Jews are a nomadic Semitic people who originated in the Middle East.
Modern definitions of whiteness
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I seem to be constantly reverting on this, so I'd like to discuss before I revert again. The sentence at the beginning of the article "This official definition encompasses many people, including Middle Easterners and many Hispanics, who might not be considered white by others and who might not consider themselves white." has been removed at least once, although it is supported later in the article. (The Middle Easterners part is cited to a RS, though the Hispanic part has not been--although the intermittent edit war about whether to include a picture of a White Hispanic at the top of the page may be evidence enough....) Someone also just removed the "even if they appear white" part from the sentence about when Muslims are excluded from the social definition of whiteness, citing POV. I have no idea how this is POV, can someone explain? Maybe the remover thinks it means all Muslims appear white, but I took it to plainly indicate that sometimes Muslims (even the portion of Muslims who appear white by skin color alone) are excluded. I haven't checked it against the original source so I don't know what the author says, but that appears reasonable. It seems like these are the sort of things we need to include to document the current (complex) social meaning of whiteness. Calliopejen102:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Unlike the other articles on American race (i.e. Asian Americans) this article on the so-called White Americans does not provide any links to subgroups, like Italian Americans and Irish Americans. That is a major shortcoming.
That's probably because "White American" is a brainchild of the ethnic experts at the Bureau of Census. Forgive me for being sarcastic but you can find what you're proposing at European American, the concept of this article is nothing but ridiculous bureaucratic misinformation IMHO.JRWalko03:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I've added the requested links. As a sidenote, the concept of "white" Americans (while perhaps biologically arbitrary at the margins) has been more or less the defining aspect of social relations in American history. The so-called "ethnic experts at the Bureau of Census" are merely trying to reflect social realities (not to group people into meaningful genetic categories) when they define whiteness, which also goes for agencies like the EEOC when they are trying to track discrimination in hiring. It only makes sense for the govt to define categories this way, because otherwise what are we tracking? I think it is silly to suggest that an article on this crucially important topic is "nothing but ridiculous bureaucratic misinformation." Calliopejen104:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I simply mean that in the 21st century the use of the term white in the US Census is completely redundant. It's like asking people which hemisphere they're from, it has no practical statistical use. If the goal of asking people their ethnicity is in fact to track discrimination, residential patterns, income equality, etc. then isn't it only prudent to have these categories actually mean something? Do Iranian women have the same patterns of education as British women? Similarly do Indians have the same English proficiency as the Cambodians? Of course this discussion is beyond the scope of wikipedia, I just wanted to comment on that statement. It just seems to me like we're wasting billions of dollars on a census that that apart from allocating congressional seats has little statistical worth. JRWalko17:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
demographics section
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Is this information on all whites or non-Hispanic whites? It could use clarification (especially the bar graph that contrasts whites and Hispanics). Calliopejen106:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
removing neil painter study
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm removing this because it barely makes mention of the United States, and the example he's using in the citation is a Chechen man who is not living in the United States. However, I'm not sure who changed the text of the article to say that the study was for Middle Easterners of any religion, because it is specifically discussing how being a Muslim can prevent someone from being white. Look at the second and third sentences on page 5. Calliopejen106:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
"significant nonreligious population"
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
This was listed in the box of religions. Seems kinda contradictory to put nonreligious in religions. Also nonreligious wasn't mentioned in any of the other ethnic groups in America articles. Why? There are black atheists, Native American atheists, etc. Don't do them a disservice by only listing it at white, or don't list it anywhere at all , since nonreligious is not a religion. --Revoluciónhablarver06:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
On further note, I just checked Asian American and atheist is listed. So how should we resolve this. I think we should list "nontheism" at every similar article so it doesn't look biased. Because whether there are more this or that in the ethnic group, atheism cuts across all ethnic groups. --Revoluciónhablarver06:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
According to whom is whiteness the norm?
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The statement "In contemporary social scientific terms Whites are regarded as the dominant racial group, whose norms and bahavioral patterns are seen as the benchmark for normality. According to sociologist Steven Seidman, 'Whitness is assumed... it is the default condition'" is hardly one of consensus, so I will edit it. For example, in her article “Mirage of an Unmarked Whiteness” in The Making and Unmaking of Whiteness, Durham: Duke University Press (2001), Ruth Frankenberg, a (white) British-born sociologist writes: "“The claim that ‘whiteness is invisible’ is often made as though representative of a timeless certitude. For one of the truisms about whiteness with which scholarly critics of whiteness frequently operate at the present time is the idea that whiteness is an unmarked category…The more one scrutinizes it, however, the more the notion as unmarked norm is revealed to be a mirage, or indeed, to put it more strongly, a white delusion,” and “When one contemplates the degree to which populations are ever fully compelled by arguments for the normativity and neutrality of whiteness, one wonders whether these particular strands within hegemony are less stable than others…It is safe to suggest that whiteness remains quite visible to men and women of color even when ‘cultural micro-climates’ make it possible for the concept to disappear into false universality from the purview of some white people.” (73,77). Kemet 21:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually what you added doesn't contradict Seidman at all - he states that Whitness becomes invisible to Whites - though it clearly remains visible to non-whites. Signaturebrendel03:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Seidman's quote is not about "racelessness," it is about the argument for the normativity and neutrality of whiteness, which, in that argument, is an "unmarked", "default" racial essence. Obviously, people of color are not the only ones who notice whiteness---but they ARE less convinced that it is an unmarked, normative, neutral category. The edit therefore misses the point, so I will revert it back to mine, which contradicts the "white-as-default" reasoning, and adds nuance to the opening paragraph.Kemet 19:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kemet (talk • contribs)
I think it best to exclude Seidman's references, since they clearly express a biased opinion of "whiteness", and make no distinctions among them when speaking about power, privelage etc. Any argument that attempts to marginalize or demonize any race for any reason can't be an opinion worth quoting in an encyclopedia. If you feel strongly about including his views, please make sure it is countered by other educated sources that present a less racist view. As articulate as it sounds, he is making sweeping generalizations about race that just ain't so.Beatmakerz (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Admixture section is a can of worms
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
For instance, there is no universal definition of a white person or an American, let alone a white American. Thus, judging admixture based upon scant proof (e.g. DNA ancestry is still an emergent study), is being overly generous to the claims, with the end result being that NPOV is not followed. Per Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "non-negotiable". Savignac08:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Plus, the privilege section is extremely controversial and almost entirely socialist in disposition. What's the matter? Socialists don't like admixture with a broader, neutral point of view that wouldn't magnify their own as paramount to the discussion? How does it feel to be small, simply because you're wrong and not infallible? You made the Pope feel that way, so take a dose of your own medicine. LOL Savignac08:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Part of the section was unreferenced OR POV - I removed that part (note I did not author that part either). I would, however, suggest that you look up the word socialism, since there was nothing "socialist" about the section. The existance of White privelege is the dominant opinion among experts - most of whom are not socialist. By all means the article is now reflective of majority opinion among experts; thus, neutral. If you beleive that most sociologists are wrong while conservative pundits (no they don't count as references) are right, then start publishing, convince most sociologists that White privelege doesn't exists and we'll change the article to suit your opinions. But for now White privelege exsists as far as sociologists and Wikipedia is concerned. Moreover, I would suggest that you mind the civility rule - I may not be socialist but your post is in clear violation of WP policy in this regard. Regards, Signaturebrendel04:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, because only certain types of opinions count. Thanks for the intellectual diversity. I've learnt something new today. Savignac04:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
RE: "Only certain opinion count" - if that's how you want to put it, yes - only those published in reputable sources "count." Due weight is to be given to those that dominate the scientific community. Obviously we cannot include everyone's opinion in Wikipedia as we are not an online editorial forum. This article must to be representative of the social scientific community. Regards, Signaturebrendel05:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course "white privilege" exists. I don't believe thats what's being disputed. The question is "what" is it exactly? How is it really defined? Since clearly not all, not even most white people in the U.S. live with this "privilege", exactly which "white people" are being talked about? When? And in what context? Without those specifics, it sounds like an entire race of people are being called "privileged"! Many people who suffer in poverty and oppression of their own. This concept of "white privilege" might be useful if it weren't being used to dismiss the humanity of and target Caucasian peoples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.129.18 (talk) 07:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
As years go by, we can hope to see a day when being white is not necessarily a sign of privilage and power, but rather another 'superficial' phneotyipc trait that can be found on some member of our larger species: that of the Homo Sapien Sapiens.</blockquote
I've removed this recently added paragraph because, even though I share this opinion, and it appears to be the opinion of most people, it's still opinion, not fact, and therefore doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Also it is unreferenced. If someone feels it should stay, feel free to re-add it (but explain why of course). -kotra 02:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Disturbing that such sweeping generalizations about Caucasians has become such a popular and unchallenged area of discourse. I find it hard to believe that such intelligent people don't understand the distinctions between people within any particular race. Certainly not all, not even most "Whites" in the U.S. live with "privilege" or "power", and those who do, do so in varying degrees. Also to suggest that white people do not face discrimination is an insult to many Caucasians who do, like the Caucasians who fought and still fight for the cause of African Americans, and others in this country; The Abolitionists, the Underground Railroad, the Civil War, even the Civil Rights movement found Our Caucasian friends fighting with and for the rights of African Americans. Some even lost their lives for Us. To not acknowledge the great variations among Caucasians, and "demonize" an entire race is backwards. Oftentimes the notion of "power and privilege" seems to be used as a means of dismissing their humanity, and sometimes justifying their exclusion based on their race. The entire concept of affinity for "People Of Color" is often used to exclude Caucasians, as if "White" was not a color like Black or Brown. This is sometimes justified by citing historical references in which Caucasians committed atrocities. However in reality no atrocity or holocaust in the history of the world was ever committed by (or against) an entire race of People. And terrible crimes against humanity have been committed at different points in history by members of every race on the planet. I believe such sweeping generalizations and vast OVERSIMPLIFICATIONS should be challenged at every step, as they take us further from a larger understanding of Human Behavior. Beatmakerz (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
What???
The origins from which white Americans may come.
How can this map be correct? How can white americans come from North Africa, or Mexico? Why it is one secton Latin Americans are white and the next they are not. I hope people in the United States know people in South and Central America are from Spain. Also people in the Middle east, Asia Minor etc were never considered white. This map should be deleted. As for the images why is Kennedy on their when he is Irish? Irish people were not considered white in the United States. My point would be that how can you have a way to determine who is white when a great deal of americans are mixed? If one gives these people a chance the would lump everyone into a box so that they could be white. White is not a race it is a color and a very foolish and ignorant why to orginize people.--Margrave1206 (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
If you look more closely at the map, you will see that less than one percent of white Americans come from North Africa and Mexico (among other places). This is not a large percentage, which reflects the fact that there aren't a lot of white people in these places. Irish were not considered white in the United States? I don't see how much whiter you can get than being Irish. I agree, it is a silly way to organize people, but based on skin color it's not all bad. Could you tell an Irishmen from an Englishmen based only on skin color?Mexicomida (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Race is a purely social construct; thus, all definitions are going to be arbitrary to some extent (it is not a color, it is like all races a mind-set - an idea, as there are no biological races aside from the human one). White is commonly synonymous with being a member of the dominant ethnic group. The Irish were not White upon arrival in the U.S., as they were discriminated against and marginialized from society; they weren't afforded recognition as being among the country's dominant ethnic group until well into the 20th century. Today, they are considered mainstream, aka. "White." Morever, since the 1960s, social scientific research and a more tolerant public have made the concept of race less meanigful and less well defined (a good thing). Eugenics is longer recognized as a science and the knowledge that races exsit nowhere but in the minds of people has become obiqious. Yet, ethnocentrisism and discrimination remain, especially regarding Latinos and Mid-easterners. Consequently, one may argue that Hispanics and Mid-easterners are not White, in the sense that they have not been fully accepted into the cultural mainstream and are still marginialized to some extent. Some sociologists would certainly agree with such an assertion. The U.S. Census Bureau, however, defines White in such a manner as to include individuals of Latino and Mid-eastern descent. Regards Signaturebrendel 06:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
First, let me say that this whole thing is terrible and should be scrapped entirely. The definition of "white" is people having origins in the original peoples of the Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. Europeans are white. I hope no one is debating that. Greeks and Romans, French, Italians and Spaniards contributed heavily to the populations of cities all over the Mediterranean. You'll find light hair and blue eyes from Morocco to Egypt to Palestine to Lebanon. I've been to Spain. Spaniards are white/european in the same that the French or Italians are. You might have old photos of grandparents from Spain or Italy who look to have dark skin. Of course they did. They were farmers and they worked out in the sun all day. If an Irish woman and an Italian man move to Argentina (many have) and have a child that grows up in Argentina their child is clearly of European descent. Just because they now come from South America and speak Spanish doesn't put them in a different ethnic group. Chinese Cubans don't stop being Chinese because they speak Spanish. Afro-Panamanians don't stop being African because they speak Spanish. Jamaicans don't stop being Afro-Caribbean because they speak English. The language you speak has nothing to do with your ethnic origin. 76.116.224.228 (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)solibs
The Whitest Last Name
Why did you take down the information about the whitest last name? I spent a lot of time researching and editing the article to make it nice and then someone took it down with the click of a mouse. The information is relevant and I will not stand to have some WikiHoles revert all my edits. Learn some wikimanners, try. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.231.44 (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding last edits concerning Argentina
I will like to point out just a couple of points concerning 200.117's claims:
The "UBA" study, is a study conducted by the Genetics Department of the University of Buenos Aires, whose findings have been corroborated by numerous studies; these findings were also accepted by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of the Government of Argentina.[4], [5]. This study has not been challenged by the Academic community, so there is no "Academic" controversy. The only controversy is that of some Wikipedian users (like the above) who happen to dislike or disagree with the results. I have invited some of them (I have never met 200.117) to provide equally reliable sources to prove that the UBA study has been "proven wrong" other than their own opinions (the link he provides is broken, and other links provided in the past related to discussions amongst geneticists of general genetic tests not on Argentina's particular case). One user actually provided the link to the Ministry of Education which ends up with the following words:
""The information herein summarized is based on scientific observations that allow [us] to redefine the belief in the purported European origin of all the inhabitants of the Argentine territory. According to our results, and many others, generated by different research groups in our country, we can confirm a substantial genetic contribution of the original peoples of the Americas into the current constitution of the Argentine population. Researches of this kind tend to contribute to the characterization of our country's identity in a respectful and anti-discriminatory way" (end of quote). [6]
A similar discussion took place at the Spanish Wikipedia with the involvement of several users. (Part of the systemic bias at the English Wikipedia is that there are just a few Argentine users not precisely representative of the entire population). There, the users agreed that the studies were valid, and therefore the information was not only kept at es:Argentina, but a new comprehensive and very informative article was created concerning the Argentine genetic composition es:Composición étnica de Argentina.
I will also like to point out that I did not delete his "source". In fact, his source (which happens to be the CIA Factbook) is included in the first sentence of my edits. I simply expanded and complemented the information presented.
I would be happy to respond any questions and participate in the debate as long as the results and consensus actually complies with Wikipedia's policies of WP:NOR, WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV.
--the Dúnadan 01:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
IDENTITY
Has anyone noticed that this article about "White Americans" tells almost nothing of their humanities, their accomplishments, their immense contributions to the world? It pits them against "People Of Color" as this opposing force who lives with "power and privilege", and seeks to dominate the world. Are we really being led to believe that this is "consensus" among modern sociologists? It is subtle, but written in a way as to demonize and marginalize Caucasian people, skipping past the fact that they are indeed PEOPLE first.Beatmakerz (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Nobody is demonizing anyone. Most sociologists & social scientists see Whites are the dominant racial group in the U.S., that is white culture is dominant. The statement does not make any normative claim regarding this observation, which is held to be true by the vast majority of social scientists, as you do above. If you disagree, that is you do not believe that White culture dominates the American mainstream, do some research, get it published in a journal, convince the social scientific community of your theory and then we can include it in the article. Even then we would continue to feature Seidman, as his oberservations regarding the dominant view among scientists are found in a highly reputable source. Social Theory Today is one of the most commonly used textbooks, translated into several languages! Whether or not the statements agree with your personal beliefs or you are under the impression it is "racist" is utterly and completely irrelevant. That said, it is against WP policy to remove sourced, reputable information - please stop now. If you believe that this info should not be included (the only valid reason here would be that Seidman isn't a reputable source - but he is) I suggest you start a WP:RfC. Signaturebrendel 08:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, I think what Beatmaker is saying is true, and this Seidman seems to be making some generalizations. Its not objective, I think the article is better without his reference.BGMNYC (talk) 08:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, even the use of the word "dominant" is questionable. Seems to me a very powerful judgment, easily misunderstood and interpreted when referring to an entire race of people. I don't agree with his choice of words, it sounds bigoted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.2.28.7 (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Brendel that this article is well backed by research and well cited. Kukinihablame aqui 16:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The fact that Seidman is published and well cited makes him no less a bigot, I'm inclined to agree that the writers of this article aren't reaching very far if thats the best source they can come up with about "White Americans". I also agree with Beatmaker, this article is not written as a balanced or objective observation. I'm not sure that the writers realize how this type of sociological rhetoric is being used today, but it does indeed fuel a very hateful, anti-white agenda among some people of color. However well intended some of these white sociologists may be, they do not appear to see how their language is being exploited by those with a much more divisive agenda. Seidman is a good example of this, his observations are superficial and lack a humane perspective.DATBUS (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Irish were not considered white?
What kind of asinine comment is that?If the Irish were not considered white, there would have been restrictions placed upon their marrying English-descended people, etc. That is clearly a liberal left-wing statement which insults the European origins of Irish people and has the sole agenda of robbing white people everywhere in the world of their right to take pride in their wonderful rich history; their culture, contributions to mankind, art, civilisation, democracy, women's rights,industry, their pioneering spirit; their respect for freedom and the will to die for it.Their inventions from the wheel to the printing press to the computers we are using this minute.I'm so sick of white Euro-bashing!!!!!jeanne (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:ElvisPresley-OneNight.jpg
The image Image:ElvisPresley-OneNight.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The white American article is probably 5 times shorter than the African American article yet White Americans make up a vast majority of the US population and likewise its history. What gives? A little reverse racism perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.108.42 (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Suburban Culture comment
I disagree with the "suburban culture"=="white neighborhoods" comments. I would like to remind everyone that it's hard for us younger people to keep up with all these old loaded, code words. Why, I had no idea growing up that only European-descended people are allowed in suburbs; those Hawaiins and Latinos and Asians and half-this and two-thirds-that were breaking the law! To think that I happily played at the local park as a child, unaware of this rampant criminal conduct around me.
Obviously I'm not serious. But I grew up in California, in a fairly diverse middle-class area, and I dislike this assumption that all of us everywhere in the country has to be aware of these outdated racial structures (my view is give help to all disadvantaged people I meet, treat everyone equal, respect all cultures, bring people together, *and never assume my own understanding and theories of society are at all correct*. I have extremely painful, personal experience of how discrimination (not racial I admit) can be entirely inside your head).
So you can see why I disagree with things like "oh, it always means white neighborhoods"; there's plenty of things *I* used to believe that were like that, and turned out to be completely false (and some that were not, lest you think I'm slighting people here).
Ok, so since the problem seemed to be "removal of content" without prior discussion, then let's discuss it.
First, though, I really need to point out that the "This article looks like an image gallery" template has been there for a while, and you (as well as anyone) certainly had a chance to act or comment on it before and instead of reverting others' edits that tried to heed the template.
That said, I don't care about who is "represented", really, but I just know that this article is far from comforming to WP:Images, WP:NOTMIRROR and other guidelines. We really don't need to have dozens of images in the middle of the text, just for the sake of having "white Americans" depicted. That is not what the purpose of images on Wikipedia is. Again, I don't care about which images are in the top-right template; however, I will remove the in-article images that were removed by 161.38.221.233 again, as I found that a very wise choice -- keeping only the images (graphs, old prints) that actually "said" something rather than a number of random faces.
I will do this in a day or so, feel free to comment in the meanwhile.
--LjL (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes i agree there are to many images in this article,some of the images through out the article are contextualized and have a purpose ,though yes i feel it should be trimmed as well and the gallery should prob go as well,but the infobox should be more diverse,i.e a few more white ethnic groups other than just people with roots from the british isles which the ip basicaly added all people from this background only,i.e that just makes sense, i know we can't represent every white ethnic group in the images ,but in any event can we get a few for editors thoughts like jeanne who edits here fequently and added alot of the content--Wikiscribe (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I am the editor respnsible for the addition of most of the images. White Americans represent many diverse ethnic groups from three different continents and I feel it's imperative that we depict as many diverse people as possible. We had a consensus here a while back and we had agreed to show ethnic, age, sex, and occupational diversity. I also felt an image gallery helped. We couldn't include all groups but I did put images of Turks, Arabs, Armenians, as well as Spanish, German, Irish, French, Polish, Hungarian, Italian and English.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
It's good to know there was some encyclopedic reasoning behind the images choice. However, the article now contains 49 images, and I believe that is just too much. I know for a fact that it breaks rendering on my browser. Also, there was an encyclopedic agenda behind putting so many images, and that's fine; but where to put them? In the leading infobox, scattered inside the article, in an image gallery...? Currently, all three methods are used. But the preferred method for that is an image gallery. Images inside the article should only be used when they're relevant to the topic of a particular section. As to the infobox, well, normally the infobox would contain one image; I understand how that might not be feasible with this article, but it's not acceptable to have a very large number of images in it, either. Also, be wary of falling victim to overcategorization: you can't really have images depicting each of the ethnicities each in a different age, each being in a different occupation - that grows exponentially.
I intend, unless you want to do it yourself better, to move images of specific people from inside the article into the image gallery (basically leaving only the images 161.38.221.233 inside the article itself), then to trim the image gallery by removing duplicate ethnicities, and then we need to somehow trim the infobox. --LjL (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The number of pics in the info box is sufficent its not over done (see Spanish People) the box is actually formatted very poorly ,i believe the problem is more the image gallery as opposed to the pics scattered through out the article because some of them have more of a purpose,also wikipedia discourages the use of galleries per WP:not but the issue here is more of the number of pics of the entire article and the usefulness of those pictures--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The Spanish People infobox has one picture, which happens to be a mosaic. It's the same thing in practice, but there are some non-negligible technical differences about it. Anyway, Wikipedia does not discourage image galleries (or it wouldn't have them as a feature to begin with!). It discourages galleries that are merely intended as redundant illustrations of the subjects, as opposed to ones which add encyclopedic value, i.e. couldn't be simply described in word with the same effect (I'll link to the relevant guideline when I find it). You just claimed that the current gallery has encyclopedic by saying that you wanted to represent different ethnic groups and such, basically saying: "here's the different ways white Americans can look like". We could debate on whether that's a good use for an image gallery, but you made a relatively convincing argument on that. On the other hand, I assure you that the amount of in-article images is absolutely disrupting unless perhaps you're using a pretty high-resolution screen. --LjL (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I said i wanted more than one ethnic group in the "infobox", please LJ don't make this so much about me i did not bring up the issue you did i just reverted unilatteral changes by an anoymous user(which removed a ton of content), but on the other hand i did say we are trying to show as many people from as many different white ethnic groups as possible but of course it's impossible to show all because of the diversirty of regions and countries white americans come from etc etc etc, i basically said the same thing jeanne just said, "that we were trying to show a strong diversity in the article" and you agreed with her and said "well at least there is an encyclopedia reason for all the pics" but you seem to want to jump down my throat and claw it out even though i agreed with your basic mindset that the pics might be a little over done and said the same thing as jeanne...one more thing i really don't care if the pics stay as is to be honest--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, actually I just assumed you were Jeanne replying to me. I didn't look at the name. --LjL (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
i fixed the info box formating a bit,also LJ if you read that tag you put on the article it says exactly what i said earlier galleries being discouraged--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
That is just a short tag intended to briefly convey the idea that there are too many images on the page. You linked, yourself, to Wikipedia:Galleries: read what it says. It talks about articles made up entirely of images - not of short, to-the-point images galleries at the end of articles (though I'm not saying this one is, just that perhaps it can be). I'll ask again: why does a "gallery" tag exist at all, if galleries simply aren't wanted? The answer is that image galleries are fine when used appropriately - here's your guideline. --LjL (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems we are both right to a certain extent LJ,i.e the use of galleries is discouraged but can be used in appropriate situations--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, everything is discouraged when used inappropriately or overused. Galleries do happen to be something that used to be routinely abused and overused, and perhaps sometimes still is. That's why we should be very careful with articles like this one. --LjL (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
why is there an "image gallery" section and why can't it just be removed instead of being tagged?
Wikipedia articles usually shouldn't include such galleries. This is what Wikimedia commons is for. You can take the gallery, move it to commons:White Americans and leave a {{commons}} link on this page. Problem solved, no content lost. --dab(𒁳) 10:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
