Christ I hate typing that. I hate that it's true. And I hate that it's not being hyped the same way it would be if the shooter had been any other ethnicity
( Read more... )
Arabs, Iranians and for that matter many Latinos are, racially speaking, Caucasians. The equation of "Muslim" with "nonwhite" (the meaningful way to say "People of Color") is possible only if you define "white" very narrowly.
It's inclusive of all people that are generally brown skinned and therefore often descriminated against. It generally includes Latinos, Asians, and African descendants.
Edited to add: This also includes Arabs, as they, too, are often, brown skinned and descriminated against because of it.
It may be a "preferred term," but it is a less logical term, particularly because it actually means ONLY "nonwhite" -- given that "white people" in fact have skin colors.
Spaniards, Portuguese, Turks, Iranians, and most Northern Arab populations are not "brown" skinned, unless we are taking our point of comparison to be a Scandinavian. In addition, most Northeast Asian peoples (North Chinese, Japanese) are not particularly brown skinned either.
There is also an implicit assumption here that "whites have the power and hence the only importanct difference is between white and nonwhite," which is no longer true in America, and is hilariously untrue in the wider world.
And what about light-skinned Arabs, such as comprise most of the populations of Syria, Jordan and Iraq? They are no darker-skinned than are (say) Greeks or South Italians.
The problem that Arabs have in public perception has everything to do with violent Muslim religious fanatics, and very little to do with the color of their skins.
Addendum: Turks, in particular, are almost entirely what we normally mean by "Caucasian," to the point that most Turks are no darker-skinned than are most Greeks or Bulgarians. And Turks are hardly a minor ethnicity is Muslim history -- the Caliphate was Turkish for half a millennium!
This behaviour of splitting hairs on which people "count" as "Causcasion" is trollish and adds nothing to the discussion.
People who are not white, obviously Western European, are regularly discriminated against. Not too long ago, that discrimination included the Irish and Italians.
This is the last I'm going to discuss who counts as white. Any further comments from you on who is "technically" white, and those comments will be deleted as they only derail the conversation.
This behaviour of splitting hairs on which people "count" as "Causcasion" is trollish and adds nothing to the discussion.
Excuse me: you explicitly stated that our hostility toward Muslim terrorists was based on their "nonwhite" status, so it is highly relevant to the discussion who is and is not "white." It seems to me as if you are obsessed with the notion that prejudice must be racial, and hence are ignoring the reality that most Muslims are in fact white.
My mistake: most Muslims are in fact neither white nor nonwhite, because geographically the heavily-Muslim part of the planet straddles the zone where a mostly-white population fades into a mostly-nonwhite population. However, the "white" Muslims include the Turks, North Arabs, and Iranians, groups more than a little bit important to the development and history of the religion, and highly-influential at present.
Can people really be considered white if they don't benefit from their whiteness at all?
I have two answers to that, both accurate:
(1) Of course they can. "White" refers to skin tone (peach to light tan, actually), not to some sort of elite social status. If you define "white" as "possessing an elite social status," then it does become true that anyone who lacks this status is "nonwhite," but purely in tautological terms. Among other things, you would then logically have to define some groups with dark sin as "white," provided that they had elite social status in their own countries!
(2) The lighter-skinned Muslims do, in point of fact, "benefit from their whiteness" even by the more reasonable definition of being "white" (namely having a paler skin tone). Turkey, Iran, and the northern Arabian countries are all fairly racist against black Africans (they consider them to be "natural slaves" owing to a millennial history of attacking and enslaving black Africans), and treat their own darker-skinned minorities rather poorly.
Right, which is why I said terrorist Muslims. If all Muslims were terrorists, then saying "terrorist Muslims" would be as redundant as saying "monotheist Muslims."
Reply
And since most Muslims are People of Color, this is equal parts religion and color.
Reply
Reply
It's inclusive of all people that are generally brown skinned and therefore often descriminated against. It generally includes Latinos, Asians, and African descendants.
Edited to add: This also includes Arabs, as they, too, are often, brown skinned and descriminated against because of it.
Reply
Spaniards, Portuguese, Turks, Iranians, and most Northern Arab populations are not "brown" skinned, unless we are taking our point of comparison to be a Scandinavian. In addition, most Northeast Asian peoples (North Chinese, Japanese) are not particularly brown skinned either.
There is also an implicit assumption here that "whites have the power and hence the only importanct difference is between white and nonwhite," which is no longer true in America, and is hilariously untrue in the wider world.
Reply
The problem that Arabs have in public perception has everything to do with violent Muslim religious fanatics, and very little to do with the color of their skins.
Reply
Reply
People who are not white, obviously Western European, are regularly discriminated against. Not too long ago, that discrimination included the Irish and Italians.
This is the last I'm going to discuss who counts as white. Any further comments from you on who is "technically" white, and those comments will be deleted as they only derail the conversation.
Reply
Excuse me: you explicitly stated that our hostility toward Muslim terrorists was based on their "nonwhite" status, so it is highly relevant to the discussion who is and is not "white." It seems to me as if you are obsessed with the notion that prejudice must be racial, and hence are ignoring the reality that most Muslims are in fact white.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I have two answers to that, both accurate:
(1) Of course they can. "White" refers to skin tone (peach to light tan, actually), not to some sort of elite social status. If you define "white" as "possessing an elite social status," then it does become true that anyone who lacks this status is "nonwhite," but purely in tautological terms. Among other things, you would then logically have to define some groups with dark sin as "white," provided that they had elite social status in their own countries!
(2) The lighter-skinned Muslims do, in point of fact, "benefit from their whiteness" even by the more reasonable definition of being "white" (namely having a paler skin tone). Turkey, Iran, and the northern Arabian countries are all fairly racist against black Africans (they consider them to be "natural slaves" owing to a millennial history of attacking and enslaving black Africans), and treat their own darker-skinned minorities rather poorly.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment