CDZ What is Race? What is 'White Race'? Where do These Concepts Come From?

[jwoodie]

What's informative about my post, JWoodie?

Your perceptive observations (pardon the redundancy).

 

[OldLady]

Race is a by-product of fear, ignorance and guilt. We are, slowly, coming to realize this, but it's gonna take a looong time before we're gonna be blind to these minor differences.

I think JimBowie's point that, "It seems to me that it is ethnicity and culture that most defines who we are by how we behave according to the things we have been taught to believe from childhood. Not what is in your DNA," is more on target. Culture shock is a real thing. The exaggeration of different groups' behavior by others who feel threatened or shocked by it is on this board 24/7, and is what we typically call "racism." But what we learn to be "normal" social behavior as children in our homes and communities is so fundamental to our outlooks that a group living by different norms is not easily embraced without practice and actual effort on our parts.
That is a GOOD reason to give young kids as many opportunities to learn about different cultures and attend school with different groups as possible.
I remember distinctly the first time I met a grandmother (a friend's) who wasn't old and overweight and didn't wear orthopedic shoes and a house dress. I was scandalized. Didn't want to accept that this woman was a grandmother at all. I certainly viewed her with great distrust.
The black community's emphasis on oral/verbal expression drives a taciturn Yankee like me NUTS. Shut up already and stop with the histrionics; you're holding up the line! We don't even cry in public, let alone carry on with the shrieking and wailing and fainting. Good lord.
Am I racist because I see differences in their culture? I don't THINK so. I would never treat a black student differently; I have black friends and have dated black guys. But there are differences and it takes some effort to accommodate those differences.

The question is whether we have common norms of behavior. Without them, we are merely co-inhabitants within a particular geographic location.

Whose should change? Theirs or ours? Eventually, we melt into the pot pretty much. With some pretty good culinary introductions and some fun festivities along the way. Change and difference are not necessarily bad things. Just challenging things.

 

[jwoodie]

Race is a by-product of fear, ignorance and guilt. We are, slowly, coming to realize this, but it's gonna take a looong time before we're gonna be blind to these minor differences.

I think JimBowie's point that, "It seems to me that it is ethnicity and culture that most defines who we are by how we behave according to the things we have been taught to believe from childhood. Not what is in your DNA," is more on target. Culture shock is a real thing. The exaggeration of different groups' behavior by others who feel threatened or shocked by it is on this board 24/7, and is what we typically call "racism." But what we learn to be "normal" social behavior as children in our homes and communities is so fundamental to our outlooks that a group living by different norms is not easily embraced without practice and actual effort on our parts.
That is a GOOD reason to give young kids as many opportunities to learn about different cultures and attend school with different groups as possible.
I remember distinctly the first time I met a grandmother (a friend's) who wasn't old and overweight and didn't wear orthopedic shoes and a house dress. I was scandalized. Didn't want to accept that this woman was a grandmother at all. I certainly viewed her with great distrust.
The black community's emphasis on oral/verbal expression drives a taciturn Yankee like me NUTS. Shut up already and stop with the histrionics; you're holding up the line! We don't even cry in public, let alone carry on with the shrieking and wailing and fainting. Good lord.
Am I racist because I see differences in their culture? I don't THINK so. I would never treat a black student differently; I have black friends and have dated black guys. But there are differences and it takes some effort to accommodate those differences.

The question is whether we have common norms of behavior. Without them, we are merely co-inhabitants within a particular geographic location.

Whose should change? Theirs or ours? Eventually, we melt into the pot pretty much. With some pretty good culinary introductions and some fun festivities along the way. Change and difference are not necessarily bad things. Just challenging things.

As a teacher, you are obviously aware of disruptive and defiant behavior in the classroom. Do you consider this to be an acceptable cultural norm? The problem is that we are no longer a "melting pot." Instead, we are becoming a disharmonious collection of special interest groups whose aggrievements are constantly magnified by opportunistic politicians.

 

[Syriusly]

Race is a by-product of fear, ignorance and guilt. We are, slowly, coming to realize this, but it's gonna take a looong time before we're gonna be blind to these minor differences.

Race is a replacement term for species when applied to homo sapiens/QUOTE]

No.

 

[Syriusly]

The only functional value to the concept of race is in understanding cultural differences and biases.

I think the only functional use of the racial construct as we experience it in the U.S. is to provide a sophistic basis for folks to

• invent and promote derisive generalizations about other folks who are different from themselves, and
• invent and promote aggrandizing generalizations about other folks who are similar to themselves.

It may be that race is useful in guiding a small handful of medical regimens. For example, certain physiological maladies are far more common in one race than they are in others. It makes sense then that doctors would look for a "common to whites" ailment as the cause of a white person's illness before testing for a "common to Asians" ailment as the cause.

Race could be used over time to breed out of the human species the recessive genes that hinder each of the races. I don't know when or if folks will figure that out and use it to their advantage. I'm not suggesting that, say, black folks actively seek out, say, Asians, because Asians are less prone to sickle cell anemia, nor am I saying that Asians should actively seek black mates to increase body mass or penis size (humor), but I'm saying that it would be beneficial to both if they don't actively eschew such pairings. After all, we know that species survival is greatly enhanced my more cross breeding rather than less.

Every other species on the planet chooses mates based on demonstrated genetic superiority. Why humans have actively gone against Mother Nature's "good sense" is quite beyond me, especially as we, unlike every other creature on the planet, know beyond a shadow of doubt that one cannot fool or elude Mother Nature.

I disagree- because the reality is that people still in large measure identify persons by race- even though race is hardly exact or perfect. Whether it is identifying a fleeing suspect as African American or laws that prevent discrimination based upon race(and religion and national origin- also not particularly exact terms)- while most of us agree that race is hardly exact- it is a factor that exists in decisions people make.

 

[OldLady]

Race is a by-product of fear, ignorance and guilt. We are, slowly, coming to realize this, but it's gonna take a looong time before we're gonna be blind to these minor differences.

I think JimBowie's point that, "It seems to me that it is ethnicity and culture that most defines who we are by how we behave according to the things we have been taught to believe from childhood. Not what is in your DNA," is more on target. Culture shock is a real thing. The exaggeration of different groups' behavior by others who feel threatened or shocked by it is on this board 24/7, and is what we typically call "racism." But what we learn to be "normal" social behavior as children in our homes and communities is so fundamental to our outlooks that a group living by different norms is not easily embraced without practice and actual effort on our parts.
That is a GOOD reason to give young kids as many opportunities to learn about different cultures and attend school with different groups as possible.
I remember distinctly the first time I met a grandmother (a friend's) who wasn't old and overweight and didn't wear orthopedic shoes and a house dress. I was scandalized. Didn't want to accept that this woman was a grandmother at all. I certainly viewed her with great distrust.
The black community's emphasis on oral/verbal expression drives a taciturn Yankee like me NUTS. Shut up already and stop with the histrionics; you're holding up the line! We don't even cry in public, let alone carry on with the shrieking and wailing and fainting. Good lord.
Am I racist because I see differences in their culture? I don't THINK so. I would never treat a black student differently; I have black friends and have dated black guys. But there are differences and it takes some effort to accommodate those differences.

The question is whether we have common norms of behavior. Without them, we are merely co-inhabitants within a particular geographic location.

Whose should change? Theirs or ours? Eventually, we melt into the pot pretty much. With some pretty good culinary introductions and some fun festivities along the way. Change and difference are not necessarily bad things. Just challenging things.

As a teacher, you are obviously aware of disruptive and defiant behavior in the classroom. Do you consider this to be an acceptable cultural norm? The problem is that we are no longer a "melting pot." Instead, we are becoming a disharmonious collection of special interest groups whose aggrievements are constantly magnified by opportunistic politicians.

Disruptive and defiant behavior is NOT a cultural norm anywhere that I am aware of. It is a behavior I've encountered from various kids of various hues. We can meld if we accept living and working together. I actually blame folks with your apparent attitude for the lack of that, more than politicians.

 

[Unkotare]

When I was a graduate business student, I was a graduate teaching assistant. I had my own classes and ran/taught them as I saw fit given the general guidelines of the department and professor to whom I was attached. In the early part of my career as a management consultant, I designed, developed and led many training programs. These days, the limit of my actual teaching activities pertains to mentoring selected young folks who show promise and who don't have the familial resources that can or will do so.

LOL, that explains a lot.

My better judgment is screaming at me right now, but I'm going to take a risk and ignore it....

What, for you, does the brief summary of my didactic and research experience explain?

Simply that it is no replacement for facts and logic. I am intellectually superior to almost everyone on this site, yet I do not cite my personal background to bolster my conclusions.

 

[Unkotare]

Race is a by-product of fear, ignorance and guilt. We are, slowly, coming to realize this, but it's gonna take a looong time before we're gonna be blind to these minor differences.

I think JimBowie's point that, "It seems to me that it is ethnicity and culture that most defines who we are by how we behave according to the things we have been taught to believe from childhood. Not what is in your DNA," is more on target. Culture shock is a real thing. The exaggeration of different groups' behavior by others who feel threatened or shocked by it is on this board 24/7, and is what we typically call "racism." But what we learn to be "normal" social behavior as children in our homes and communities is so fundamental to our outlooks that a group living by different norms is not easily embraced without practice and actual effort on our parts.
That is a GOOD reason to give young kids as many opportunities to learn about different cultures and attend school with different groups as possible.
I remember distinctly the first time I met a grandmother (a friend's) who wasn't old and overweight and didn't wear orthopedic shoes and a house dress. I was scandalized. Didn't want to accept that this woman was a grandmother at all. I certainly viewed her with great distrust.
The black community's emphasis on oral/verbal expression drives a taciturn Yankee like me NUTS. Shut up already and stop with the histrionics; you're holding up the line! We don't even cry in public, let alone carry on with the shrieking and wailing and fainting. Good lord.
Am I racist because I see differences in their culture? I don't THINK so. I would never treat a black student differently; I have black friends and have dated black guys. But there are differences and it takes some effort to accommodate those differences.

The question is whether we have common norms of behavior. Without them, we are merely co-inhabitants within a particular geographic location.

Whose should change? Theirs or ours? Eventually, we melt into the pot pretty much. With some pretty good culinary introductions and some fun festivities along the way. Change and difference are not necessarily bad things. Just challenging things.

...The problem is that we are no longer a "melting pot." ....

Yes we are.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Race is a by-product of fear, ignorance and guilt. We are, slowly, coming to realize this, but it's gonna take a looong time before we're gonna be blind to these minor differences.

I think JimBowie's point that, "It seems to me that it is ethnicity and culture that most defines who we are by how we behave according to the things we have been taught to believe from childhood. Not what is in your DNA," is more on target. Culture shock is a real thing. The exaggeration of different groups' behavior by others who feel threatened or shocked by it is on this board 24/7, and is what we typically call "racism." But what we learn to be "normal" social behavior as children in our homes and communities is so fundamental to our outlooks that a group living by different norms is not easily embraced without practice and actual effort on our parts.
That is a GOOD reason to give young kids as many opportunities to learn about different cultures and attend school with different groups as possible.
I remember distinctly the first time I met a grandmother (a friend's) who wasn't old and overweight and didn't wear orthopedic shoes and a house dress. I was scandalized. Didn't want to accept that this woman was a grandmother at all. I certainly viewed her with great distrust.
The black community's emphasis on oral/verbal expression drives a taciturn Yankee like me NUTS. Shut up already and stop with the histrionics; you're holding up the line! We don't even cry in public, let alone carry on with the shrieking and wailing and fainting. Good lord.
Am I racist because I see differences in their culture? I don't THINK so. I would never treat a black student differently; I have black friends and have dated black guys. But there are differences and it takes some effort to accommodate those differences.

There are many reasons why we rub each other the wrong way. Cultural differences are certainly on that long list. It's worth remembering, however, that most murders take place within the family. That's not a sentiment likely to find its way to the inside of a Hallmark greeting card, but it is what we are. A fearful, ignorant race with poor impulse control. Teaching tolerance for other cultures is certainly an important thing to do, but it's just dealing with the symptoms of larger, more fundamental problems.

I see the saving grace as guilt. We treat each other abominably, but there is something which grew within more developed countries, countries large enough to experience cultural friction and population pressure. It was ethics. Partially it was religion and partially it was philosophy and partly it was an emotional response to our failures of impulse control. The result, for most people, is that we feel bad when we break these rules. There is no more important social duty than shaming the unethical. It really does work.

It's always been a terrible dance, though. A few people come to realize that ages old practices are wrong. Unethical. They are laughed at, but they persuade some, who persuade others, and finally it's a crackpot movement, then a general consensus and finally a majority opinion. Eventually it's taken for granted, but there is a backlash at every stage, loud at first when the people on the wrong side of history are most numerous. Then, eventually, it's driven underground, deemed too extreme for polite company. Until Trump. Now it's out in the open and we are literally being given the opportunity to stand up and be counted. Trump is a fear magnet. We'll see how many people he can draw in.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Race is a by-product of fear, ignorance and guilt. We are, slowly, coming to realize this, but it's gonna take a looong time before we're gonna be blind to these minor differences.

Race is a replacement term for species when applied to homo sapiens/QUOTE]

No.

Exactly right. Race is not anything like species.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I disagree- because the reality is that people still in large measure identify persons by race- even though race is hardly exact or perfect. Whether it is identifying a fleeing suspect as African American or laws that prevent discrimination based upon race(and religion and national origin- also not particularly exact terms)- while most of us agree that race is hardly exact- it is a factor that exists in decisions people make.

But race is not as useful as more exact description.

For example, a witness sees someone he considers a light complected African American fleeing the scene of a crime.

But how do they know that the person is not simply dark complected? There are many whites who have darker skin than many blacks have.

Just give the details and just leave race out of it would seem to be the best approach.

 

[Syriusly]

I disagree- because the reality is that people still in large measure identify persons by race- even though race is hardly exact or perfect. Whether it is identifying a fleeing suspect as African American or laws that prevent discrimination based upon race(and religion and national origin- also not particularly exact terms)- while most of us agree that race is hardly exact- it is a factor that exists in decisions people make.

But race is not as useful as more exact description.

For example, a witness sees someone he considers a light complected African American fleeing the scene of a crime.

But how do they know that the person is not simply dark complected? There are many whites who have darker skin than many blacks have.

Just give the details and just leave race out of it would seem to be the best approach.

Well considering how unreliable witnesses descriptions are- you have a point- yet 'African American' is more descriptive(if accurate) than dark skinned person- for as you point out- skin color is not particularly explicit.

 

[Asclepias]

I have meant to try this thread for a long time, but something always seems to happen to prevent that. Maybe that was a good thing, I dont know, but I finally have a few moments so I thought I would go ahead and give it a shot.

First, there are two concepts to get nailed down first.

1. Classification of objects is for the purposes of function, mostly, and tends to sort things based on function and behavior. If we categorize vehicles we tend to sort them by categories like 'truck', 'sedan', 'van', coups, etc, as these are reflective of the function, purpose and the intended behavior of the vehicle buyer. The color of the vehicles paint job would be a latter consideration normally.

2. Gray scale is a continuum of gradual change, with few if any white pixels and nearly all black at one end to the other end with almost entirely white pixels. As o ne transitions from one end to the other there seems to be a clear gradual change of the scales darkness, but if you bent the page and placed the two ends side by side you see a contrast that might suggest a basic essential difference that is not really there.

That out of the way, we have to look at the simple fact that racial 'science' has never been much more than a pseudo science. While one can use scientific methods to ID a skeleton by racial criteria, the criteria itself is arbitrary and based on little more than geographical location.

There is also no clear delineation between races, how many races there are or what ethnic groups belong to which. Most people recognize the three basic races, Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid, but few realize that there are other categorizations as well, such as the Polynesians who some consider Caucasian and others consider Mongoloid and yet others consider an entirely separate race. Some say that there are seven races, in addition to the previous three we would also have Amerindians, Australoids, Polynesians, and Dravidians.

Now the term 'white' was in the old days used to mean northern Caucasians, and yet few would say today that the Greeks and Italians are not white. Certainly the US Census bureau does not consider Italians to be nonwhite. And yet many consider Latin Americans to be a strange new race called 'Hispanic' though they are almost entirely Caucasian and Mestizo and the later has been long considered a subgroup of Caucasian.

The racialist 'Identity Politics' ideology uses racial categories to define its constituent groups and they like to split anyone away from the majority population by any means available, so if you are white Hispanic, then you are not white, just Hispanic. If you are half white half black like Obama, then you are black. To them you are anything you prefer to be, even a different species, if that is what your heart tells you that you are.

But there is nothing that essentially defines humanity along racial lines. It is just ethnicity grouped together into arbitrary categories, like whether Dravidians are Caucasian, Polynesian or their own separate race.

It seems to me that it is ethnicity and culture that most defines who we are by how we behave according to the things we have been taught to believe from childhood. Not what is in your DNA.

Race, as it is presently understood, was started by whites intent on establishing white supremacy. Race in all actually is more a culture derived by shared genetic roots. There are light skinned Blacks that are lighter than some whites like Steph Curry but they are definitely Black in DNA and culture.

 

[Asclepias]

The only functional value to the concept of race is in understanding cultural differences and biases.

I think the only functional use of the racial construct as we experience it in the U.S. is to provide a sophistic basis for folks to

• invent and promote derisive generalizations about other folks who are different from themselves, and
• invent and promote aggrandizing generalizations about other folks who are similar to themselves.

It may be that race is useful in guiding a small handful of medical regimens. For example, certain physiological maladies are far more common in one race than they are in others. It makes sense then that doctors would look for a "common to whites" ailment as the cause of a white person's illness before testing for a "common to Asians" ailment as the cause.

Race could be used over time to breed out of the human species the recessive genes that hinder each of the races. I don't know when or if folks will figure that out and use it to their advantage. I'm not suggesting that, say, black folks actively seek out, say, Asians, because Asians are less prone to sickle cell anemia, nor am I saying that Asians should actively seek black mates to increase body mass or penis size (humor), but I'm saying that it would be beneficial to both if they don't actively eschew such pairings. After all, we know that species survival is greatly enhanced my more cross breeding rather than less.

Every other species on the planet chooses mates based on demonstrated genetic superiority. Why humans have actively gone against Mother Nature's "good sense" is quite beyond me, especially as we, unlike every other creature on the planet, know beyond a shadow of doubt that one cannot fool or elude Mother Nature.

Actually sickle cell is caused by a genetic mutation to protect against malaria. We dont want this to disappear as long as there are mosquitos.

 

[320 Years of History]

The only functional value to the concept of race is in understanding cultural differences and biases.

I think the only functional use of the racial construct as we experience it in the U.S. is to provide a sophistic basis for folks to

• invent and promote derisive generalizations about other folks who are different from themselves, and
• invent and promote aggrandizing generalizations about other folks who are similar to themselves.

It may be that race is useful in guiding a small handful of medical regimens. For example, certain physiological maladies are far more common in one race than they are in others. It makes sense then that doctors would look for a "common to whites" ailment as the cause of a white person's illness before testing for a "common to Asians" ailment as the cause.

Race could be used over time to breed out of the human species the recessive genes that hinder each of the races. I don't know when or if folks will figure that out and use it to their advantage. I'm not suggesting that, say, black folks actively seek out, say, Asians, because Asians are less prone to sickle cell anemia, nor am I saying that Asians should actively seek black mates to increase body mass or penis size (humor), but I'm saying that it would be beneficial to both if they don't actively eschew such pairings. After all, we know that species survival is greatly enhanced my more cross breeding rather than less.

Every other species on the planet chooses mates based on demonstrated genetic superiority. Why humans have actively gone against Mother Nature's "good sense" is quite beyond me, especially as we, unlike every other creature on the planet, know beyond a shadow of doubt that one cannot fool or elude Mother Nature.

Actually sickle cell is caused by a genetic mutation to protect against malaria. We dont want this to disappear as long as there are mosquitos.

TY

Holy double-edged sword. Have one copy of the mutation and you're fine and you have a natural resistance to malaria. Have two and you have sickle cell. On the other hand, there is a cure and several prophylactic drugs for malaria; thus given the choice between carrying a copy of the sickle cell mutation and not, I'd just as soon not. It seems too that folks who live in malaria prone areas can develop an immunity to the disease via how the immune system works. Thus I fall of the side of thinking the sickle cell mutation is one we can do without...but that's just me. Perhaps others feel differently about it?

 

[Asclepias]

The only functional value to the concept of race is in understanding cultural differences and biases.

I think the only functional use of the racial construct as we experience it in the U.S. is to provide a sophistic basis for folks to

• invent and promote derisive generalizations about other folks who are different from themselves, and
• invent and promote aggrandizing generalizations about other folks who are similar to themselves.

It may be that race is useful in guiding a small handful of medical regimens. For example, certain physiological maladies are far more common in one race than they are in others. It makes sense then that doctors would look for a "common to whites" ailment as the cause of a white person's illness before testing for a "common to Asians" ailment as the cause.

Race could be used over time to breed out of the human species the recessive genes that hinder each of the races. I don't know when or if folks will figure that out and use it to their advantage. I'm not suggesting that, say, black folks actively seek out, say, Asians, because Asians are less prone to sickle cell anemia, nor am I saying that Asians should actively seek black mates to increase body mass or penis size (humor), but I'm saying that it would be beneficial to both if they don't actively eschew such pairings. After all, we know that species survival is greatly enhanced my more cross breeding rather than less.

Every other species on the planet chooses mates based on demonstrated genetic superiority. Why humans have actively gone against Mother Nature's "good sense" is quite beyond me, especially as we, unlike every other creature on the planet, know beyond a shadow of doubt that one cannot fool or elude Mother Nature.

Actually sickle cell is caused by a genetic mutation to protect against malaria. We dont want this to disappear as long as there are mosquitos.

TY

Holy double-edged sword. Have one copy of the mutation and you're fine and you have a natural resistance to malaria. Have two and you have sickle cell. On the other hand, there is a cure and several prophylactic drugs for malaria; thus given the choice between carrying a copy of the sickle cell mutation and not, I'd just as soon not. It seems too that folks who live in malaria prone areas can develop an immunity to the disease via how the immune system works. Thus I fall of the side of thinking the sickle cell mutation is one we can do without...but that's just me. Perhaps others feel differently about it?

I prefer the natural immunity. Cures can be withheld, the disease mutate, world as we know it come to an end etc. There have been many discoveries about the genes of Black people. Read up on Henrietta Lacks and also the gene mutation for low cholesterol found only in African descended people. Even some of the people in Africa had natural immunity to the Ebola disease. I actually have the low cholesterol gene and the sickle cell trait.

 

[Owsi68]

I have mean
t is in your DNA.

Up until recently I would have said an Asian was generally known as someone with brown eyes, straight black hair and slanted eyes. But in a recent encounter with a liberal White female (67 yrs) who shakes with nervousness at the idea she is racist as much as she does at the idea of being alone in a group of non-Whites, it slowly became apparent to me that she classified Indians (from India) as Asian. But she is a 4th generation American.

Technically she is right but for shit's sake you could throw in the people of Russia and the Middle East to name some really big groups on the continent of Asia. And you could classify Japanese as Pacific-Islanders too while you're "generalizing."

I understand that the term Asian in the UK is used to include people from India as well as the far east and southeast Asian countries. But in America I never thought of them (Indians) when people mentioned Asians.

With all of the pc crap and hypersensitive yet ignorant liberals, i don't know what to call anyone anymore. But for the sake of things like criminal reports, medical classifications, etc.there should at least be a simple yet universally understood description. There are some instances where we all need to set aside personal sensitivity.

Imagine a broadcast for a Black female abducted by a Middle-Eastern male going out as, "Be on the lookout for an Asian man with medium complexion holding a female with green eyes, curly hair, and a light complexion."

I can see our pc future now - highly sensitive and highly ineffective before we all die of state-imposed ignorance.

 

[there4eyeM]

It is easy to view 'race' (as used in English) as an unproductive term. In fact, it seems often counter-productive.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The White race is the lineage of Europe....

So that would include Hispanic Berbers from Spain or Turks from the balkans?

Nope.

But they too are from Europe.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I have mean
t is in your DNA.

Up until recently I would have said an Asian was generally known as someone with brown eyes, straight black hair and slanted eyes. But in a recent encounter with a liberal White female (67 yrs) who shakes with nervousness at the idea she is racist as much as she does at the idea of being alone in a group of non-Whites, it slowly became apparent to me that she classified Indians (from India) as Asian. But she is a 4th generation American.

Technically she is right but for shit's sake you could throw in the people of Russia and the Middle East to name some really big groups on the continent of Asia. And you could classify Japanese as Pacific-Islanders too while you're "generalizing."

I understand that the term Asian in the UK is used to include people from India as well as the far east and southeast Asian countries. But in America I never thought of them (Indians) when people mentioned Asians.

With all of the pc crap and hypersensitive yet ignorant liberals, i don't know what to call anyone anymore. But for the sake of things like criminal reports, medical classifications, etc.there should at least be a simple yet universally understood description. There are some instances where we all need to set aside personal sensitivity.

Imagine a broadcast for a Black female abducted by a Middle-Eastern male going out as, "Be on the lookout for an Asian man with medium complexion holding a female with green eyes, curly hair, and a light complexion."

I can see our pc future now - highly sensitive and highly ineffective before we all die of state-imposed ignorance.

I think that just sticking to the observable facts without making generalizations is the best approach.

If I see a dark skinned man running from a store that has been robbed, saying he is black lets out many who could have committed the crime (dark skinned non black people like Dravidians) and lumps in people who could not have been the suspect (light skinned blacks).

So why bring up race?

As to Indians from Asia, they are caucasian, and Hitler's grand plan was to conquor India and have what he considered the source of the caucasian race to supplement his Aryan godlings.