Mediterranean Race–Problems of Classification

United States ETHNICITY AND RACE IDENTIFICATION:
https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf181.pdf
Hispanic or Latino: A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.
American Indian or Alaska Native: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.
Asian: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Black or African American: A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.
White: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.
 
Do Middle Easterners have a separate category in the census? or are they classified under "White"?

proposednewcensusrace.png


So Germans, Irish, Lebanese, and Egyptians are White, but apparently, Spaniard isn't.

Nevertheless, the U.S. government doesn't rule out the use of DNA testing, in some matters of immigration. But due to the expense, they just ask for photo IDs, and more arbitrary identification. Most likely, privacy concerns as well.

https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/immigrate/family/dna-test-procedures.html

Genetic testing is a useful tool for verifying a stated biological relationship when no other form of credible evidence is available in conjunction with an immigrant visa (IV) application. Commonly tested relationships that utilize DNA testing include paternity, maternity, full-siblingship, or half-siblingship. More distant relationships cannot be proven reliably using DNA testing. DNA technology is the only non-documentary method accepted for proof of a biological relationship. However, due to the expense, complexity, and logistical delays inherent in parentage testing, genetic testing should be used only if no other credible proof (documentation, photos, etc.) of the relationship exists.

Edit: The US government uses the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). The Wiki said they may have phenotypic information. But I checked the source, and I don't think its sufficient.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_DNA_Index_System#cite_note-Phenotypic-15

The loci used in CODIS were chosen because they are in regions of noncoding DNA, sections that do not code for proteins. These sections should not be able to tell investigators any additional information about the person such as their hair or eye color, or their race.[14] However, new advancements in the understanding of genetic markers and ancestry have indicated that the CODIS loci may actually contain some phenotypic information.[15][16]
 
The census makes it clear that "The racial categories included in the census questionnaire generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country and not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically. "

Socially Middle Easterners aren't seen as white, so yeah I think it should not count as white.
 
It would be easier to have meta ethnicity identities than these Old World classifications which were done with racist intentions, and sadly this seems to be focused to much.

I'll respect any opinon you have on classifying human genetic diversity. Race in the history of America however can be explained by simple categories. Between 1500 and 1800 the Americas had three races: white, Indian (Native American), and Black. No one in America created the concept of those racial categories for racist purposes, they just created words to refer to the reality in front of them. Racist views abounded in American history but racial terms weren't created for racist inteions.

But I guess maybe racial categories in Europe, like Aryan, were created with racist intentions.
 
The census makes it clear that "The racial categories included in the census questionnaire generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country and not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically. "

Socially Middle Easterners aren't seen as white, so yeah I think it should not count as white.

The 2020 census may feature a MENA category if the U.S. Congress passes it.

I was confused as to why middle easterners would be considered white. But they had to argue that they were white in court in order to become citizens.

Early Arab immigrants desperately pursued whiteness and performed it in immigration proceedings. The law officially mandated whiteness as a prerequisite for US citizenship until 1952. Key judicial decisions in 1915 and later 1944, solidified the legal designation that Arabs were white by law.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/07/arabs-white-150716110921150.html

Many other groups did the same thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_whiteness_in_the_United_States

Here's a lecture video about the subject by the Library of Congress.

 
Last edited:
The census makes it clear that "The racial categories included in the census questionnaire generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country and not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically. "
Socially Middle Easterners aren't seen as white, so yeah I think it should not count as white.

Someone on youtube claimed Middle Eastern Christians choose to identify as white more than Muslim Middle Easterners do, I couldn't verify his claim.

But he does raise a very interesting issue, Armenians and Georgians identify more as European than their neighboring Azeri people, who are Muslim.

If the Middle East and North Africa were Christian, people wouldn't consider adding a MENA category in the US Census Bureau, and if the countries in the region were prosperous enough maybe even the European Union would change its borders.

Is Islam the greatest divider of East and West?
 
Someone on youtube claimed Middle Eastern Christians choose to identify as white more than Muslim Middle Easterners do, I couldn't verify his claim.

But he does raise a very interesting issue, Armenians and Georgians identify more as European than their neighboring Azeri people, who are Muslim.

If the Middle East and North Africa were Christian, people wouldn't consider adding a MENA category in the US Census Bureau, and if the countries in the region were prosperous enough maybe even the European Union would change its borders.

Is Islam the greatest divider of East and West?

Those census bureau classifications are all screwed up. However, if they have a category for Hispanics and even, I think, but haven't checked, "white" Hispanics, I doubt they would classify North Africans as European.

It's color as well as religion. Armenians are white and Christian. I can see where Armenian-Americans here might classify themselves as European, particularly as they suffered so much at the hands of Muslim Middle Easterners. Why would they want to identify with them?

The same goes for Georgians. They were part of the USSR for a long time, and again are white and Christian.

The people from Azerbaijan are an interesting case. I think it's they who "segregate" themselves in terms of identity. I remember reading something about the Boston Bomber where it said he identified as non-white, and various commentators saying that they couldn't understand that. In a country with a large black population and visibly Amer-Indian and black Hispanics, the finer distinctions in terms of whom should be put in the "white" camp get lost.

There was an interesting post by Razib Khan about this too, where he said Indian students were presumed to be possibly Al Qaeda types and getting harassed somewhere, but not some of the Middle Eastern students.

Americans aren't good at either phenotype classification or geography apparently.

The Boston Bomber:
thumbnail.php


Plus, I don't think Armenians or Georgians or Azerbaijanis would be classified anthropologically as being part of the "Mediterranean" race anyway in classical anthropology, would they, so I don't quite understand the title of your thread.

Nor would many North Africans: Tuareg Berbers, for example
1dab01b7cadb30009785b9a9500e3dca.jpg


I just thought of an example. Danny Thomas was a beloved American comedian of Lebanese descent who was a devout Catholic. Nobody ever considered him anything other than white. I doubt anyone thought of him as being Middle Eastern, but of course he was.

3477760775_afc19a07351.jpg


The same goes for Ralph Nader, consumer advocate.
ralph-nader-1975.jpeg.jpeg
 
What do you think about the Atlanto-Mediterranid phenotype? Is this a misleading term?
 
What do you think about the Atlanto-Mediterranid phenotype? Is this a misleading term?

I think there's a problem with all those classifications, as even the 19th and early 20th century anthropologists who created them couldn't agree.

Then there's the places like theapricity where terms and definitions are made up by them. To the best of my recollection, none of the professionals found much "Atlanto-Med" in Iberia, instead finding that most of the population is "gracile med", for example.
 
The Spaniards have put us in the Hispanic, it seems to me that it implies cultural and historical problems beyond the race and if that serves the Americans as a method of control and identification of foreigners who come to their country, it is their business.


For me the white race is flesh-colored or also called skin color.

Nobody thinks about white stockings when going to buy some stockings.

There are very white stockings but it is an exception perhaps on occasion to feel different, but it is an exception, the queen of the stockings are flesh or skin color. This classification in some places call it "brown" because not sir, it is the pattern, the base model.

You're going to buy some stockings and they're flesh-colored, sometimes girls can wear red, black or white stockings, but the lifelong stockings are flesh-colored.

S_751421-MLA20759506631_062016-O.jpg


My racial classification is based on the media, it is a method devised by me and that serves both me and the US. UU He has his own method that I respect, but mine.
 
@Carlos It's also about what's in the “cheese”. lol

Mother Nature classifies Skin Tone through DNA, more or less goes like that:

rs1426654 AA = Light Skin, European Ancestry

rs1426654 AG = Mix-European + (African or Asian)

rs1426654 GG = Dark Skin, Asian or African ancestry

https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs1426654

6ZWoztF.jpg


——————-
US race classification:
example from ID

YASj1oR.jpg

The weight is in Pounds, the height in Feet.
 
Last edited:
I see a certain policy in these skin color decisions. The tendency to monopolize Europeanness from the example of a European who is clearer than anyone else has long been seen. But Europe is very big and if it is worth the nuclear target is also worth the flesh color that I think it would be the model, from there there would be variants, mutations, anomalies as you want to call for more clarity.


Anyway, I prefer my system. The panty classification

maxresdefault.jpg


I have seen that the skin of people in southern Europe is classified as brown and I think not, it is flesh-colored, skin-colored or panty-colored. The ends would be nuclear white or maybe darker than the panty color. So European is one color like the other. If you are interested in Eurasia for what interests you, you can also interest other latitudes for the same. The monopoly of Europe is not from central Europe up.
 
To tell the truth, in everyday life, I don’t pay much attention to people Race and Skin Color anymore, unless a person has a noticeble non-American accent, just to see where it comes from, regardless of the person's appearance.
 
To tell the truth, in everyday life, I don’t pay much attention to people Race and Skin Color anymore, unless a person has a noticeble non-American accent, just to see where it comes from, regardless of the person's appearance.

Completely agree. It's such an inconsequential aspect of a human being.
 
Completely agree. It's such an inconsequential aspect of a human being.
Well, he is from the USA (and he is used to see blacks, mestizos, amerindians, asians, and so on) on a daily basis. You are from Europe, and the inmigration is quite recent, so seen dark skinned or non-whites is a new phenomenum for most of us (specially in italy or Spain).
 
The census makes it clear that "The racial categories included in the census questionnaire generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country and not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically. "

Socially Middle Easterners aren't seen as white, so yeah I think it should not count as white.

And why is that? Because they're Muslim. So if a "white" person converted to Islam, are they suddenly now white-passing, because they've now absorbed a "non-white" cultural trait? By that logic Bosnians and Albanians aren't socially white either, despite being from the European continent.

This is the problem with the term "whiteness". It assumes that all white people are a monolith, so it becomes to easier to isolate select groups from that category.

If you say Anglo-Saxons and Greeks are both 100% white culturally, it makes it easier to say Turks are non-white invaders. But if you look at the cultural, genetic, and historical similarities between Greece and Turkey, the "racial" division between the two doesn't make sense. It's easy for an ignorant American to say Greece is white Turkey is brown, but when you visit both you realize how much they have in common due to proximity. People often see race in terms of extreme differing phenotypes, but they often forget everything in between. If white means European, than many Turks ARE in fact white, because their genetics come from European populations. There's been so much mixing that many of these people aren't purely of any race. A Bulgarian can have substantial gypsy and Turkic DNA, are they now non-white even though they've been raised in a European culture?

So clearly race is based on the idea that certain phenotypes have certain cultures, which is absolutely insane, considering that culture is more based on your environment and upbringing than the prevalence of a phenotype. By that logic, a Greek can be brought up in Turkey with the new religion and customs, and will be seen as "white-passing" because he is culturally Anatolian, despite being genetically Greek. The reverse is also true.

So I think it's safe to say that if a "white" MENA person is brought up in a Western environment, he is without a question white. He assimilates much easier into the mainstream because his appearance won't be questioned. White-passing is a false term precisely because looking white enables you to hide your "POC" origin because you don't have to reveal things like your background or your religion. A white-passing can lie about their genetics and nobody would question them. A person who is visibly POC could never do the same. White privilege applies to everyone who looks like a fair-skinned Caucasoid. That is fact. A man like Bashar al-Assad would have the white experience like any other white American, all he needs to do is perhaps slightly tweak his name (although his name isn't even that Muslim-sounding). His wife doesn't wear hijab, let's assume he's a secular Muslim - he is by no means a person of color.

So it's wrong to say that MENA aren't socially seen as white, because 1) Middle Eastern isn't a race, and 2) culture is based on environment and not phenotype. If white-passing is a thing because of culture, then someone white can become white-passing by virtue of adopting that culture. Races don't have cultures, and thus white-passing cannot be a thing. Lebanese must be Arab-passing, because they are not genetically Arab but only culturally. So if culture is the most important, than adopting "white culture" makes someone fundamentally white.

You see what I mean? You can't support the concept of white-passing without recognizing how it practically illegitimatizes what being white means: genetics. Someone can be genetically European despite not being being part of the European cultural sphere. I'm shocked how many people don't realize this. Races don't have cultures, because culture goes beyond racial boundaries.
 
If white means European, than many Turks ARE in fact white, because their genetics come from European populations.

would rather say it's the other way around. a lot of european genetics come from recent migrations out of the near east. both are not really correct but i think that way it is closer to the truth. if white means european then it is more of a geographical grouping that has no real genetic foundation.
 
That's one of the more ridiculous things I've ever heard; so ridiculous that I doubt you're Italian.

An Italian who doesn't mention our art, our architecture, our music, our language, our literature?

Go away. We don't need any more t-rolls.
 
That's one of the more ridiculous things I've ever heard; so ridiculous that I doubt you're Italian.

An Italian who doesn't mention our art, our architecture, our music, our language, our literature?

Go away. We don't need any more t-rolls.

was there a now deleted comment of an italian poster or is this adressing me?
 

This thread has been viewed 47321 times.

Back
Top