White (people)

White (also White people, White race or Whites) is one of various color metaphors for race used as a form of classification of people. Though literally implying light-skinned, "White" has been used in different ways at different times and places. Like other color metaphors commonly employed to categorise human ethnic or racial groups, its precise definition is unclear with no common standard.

Although different definitions of "White" vary, the most common feature is that the term refers to caucasoid people descended from Europe. As such, the areas of the world that are considered to be predominantly "White" include all of the countries of Europe, as well as Argentina, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States of America, and Uruguay.

Across the globe, and especially throughout the Western Hemisphere, a person's consideration as "White" has been affected by past or present colloquial, scientific and legal understandings, including definitions based for such purposes as censuses, anti-miscegenation laws, affirmative action, and racial quotas. These factors and the groups they involve are explored throughout the article.

Genetic History of Europe

This section describes demographic and genetic flow into Europe. For a broader, more detailed view of Human migrations, see that article.

Paleolithic

The prehistory of the European peoples can be traced by the examination of archaeological sites, linguistic studies, and by the examination of the sequence of bases of DNA of the people who live in Europe now, or from recovered ancient DNA. Much of this research is ongoing, with discoveries still being continually made, and theories rise and fall. Even the broad consensus, based initially upon the analysis of mitochondrial DNA, but confirmed by Y-chromosome lineages and most recently by autosomal polymorphisms (indels, Alu sequences, SNPs, etc.), that early man migrated out of Africa 65-85,000 years ago has its critics.

The human race (homo sapiens) began to colonize Europe from Africa about 35 millennia ago, arriving along two major channels on either side of the Black Sea. Very quickly—by about 25 millenia ago—the prior inhabitants (our cousin species H. neanderthalensis) became extinct. About 22 millennia ago, glaciers began to cover Europe, rendering much of the region uninhabitable. The inhabitants fled to areas along the northern Mediterranean coastline. When the glaciers receded about 16 millennia ago, the populations that had taken refuge were joined by many other waves of peoples from Asia and Africa to re-colonize the newly inhabitable region. Their descendants became the hunter-gatherers who occupied Europe until the advent of agriculture. Then, about eight millennia ago, farming spread from Asia throughout Europe, bringing the Indo-European family of languages along with the new technology.

Indo-Europeans

Theories about the origins of the Indo-European language center around a hypothetical Proto-Indo-European people, who are traced in the Kurgan hypothesis to somewhere north of the Black Sea or possibly Armenia around 10,000 BCE. They domesticated the horse, and spread their culture and genes across Europe. To what extent they replaced the indigenous Mesolithic peoples is debated, but a consensus has been reached that roughly 20 percent of the Indo-European expansion into Europe was gene flow and 80 percent was technology and language transfer.See Bryan Sykes, The Seven Daughters of Eve, 1st American ed. (New York: Norton, 2001) for an entertaining account of how this consensus was reached. For historical reasons, in the 1980s mtDNA researchers believed that the Indo-European expansion was overwhelmingly a spread of technology and language, not of genes, while the those who studied Y-chromosome lineages believed the opposite. Gradually the mtDNA guys (Sykes) admitted more physical migration into their scenarios, while the Y folks (Peter Underhill) accepted more technology-copying. Eventually, both groups independently reached a 20-80 ratio. The mtDNA vs. Y discrepancy is explained by noting that in such migrations, foreign men do the conquering and make the rules while indigenous women get raped and have the babies.

Despite the near-total replacement of paleolithic languages and the partial replacement of DNA markers during the arrival of agriculture, several small pockets remain of the pre-Indo-European paleolithic peoples. The best known examples are the Basques of the Pyrenees and the Saami of Finland, both of which have distinctive pre-Indo-European genetic markers and speak pre-Indo-European languages.

Asiatic tribes

Over the next six millennia, Europe was repeatedly swept by successive waves of settlers and invaders from central and eastern Asia, who were also assimilated into the population. Asian autosomal DNA marks an important contribution to the gene pools of Eastern Europe and Scandinavia, present at frequencies ranging from almost 50% in Lapland to between 7 and 13% in Finland, Russia and Hungary, with a steady decline southward and westward in Finland.Guglielmino et al. 1990, Rosenberg et al. 2002 and Cavalli-Sforza 1997 Huns, Mongols, Tatars and earlier Uralic-speaking migrants are possible sources of this admixture.

North African influences

Low levels of mtDNA haplogroup U6 and Haplogroup V and Y-chromosome haplogroup E-M81, specific to North African Berbers is found throughout Europe, but particularly in Iberia which was under Moorish rule for a number of centuries. An isolated community in the Pas Valley of northern Spain has as much as 41% E-M81.Cruciani et al. 2004

Sub-Saharan African slaves

Finally, sub-Saharan African DNA is scattered throughout the European continent. Not every population has been studied yet, but enough have so that a picture is starting to emerge. The amount of black admixture in Europe today ranges from a few percent in Iberia to almost nil around the Baltic.Pereira et al. 2005 (view the specific data here) It seems to show a decreasing cline from the southwest to the northeast, which corresponds with the areas most affected by the African slave trade. For details, see Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe.

In summary, autochthonous Europeans are composed of prehistoric and more recent genetic elements from different parts of Asia and Africa. For a global perspective on this topic, see Atlas of the Human Journey, World Haplogroups Maps, Origins of Europeans and Genetic Structure of Human Populations.

Racial Politics

Pre-modern usage of White may not correspond to current concepts. Europeans who traveled to Northeast Asia in the 17^th century applied White to the people they encountered (see suggested readings below) — the term having no other connotations at that time — and indeed, even today the name of the Bai people of Yunnan, China translates as "white".

As European colonization of the Americas and eventually other parts of the world brought Europeans into close contact with other peoples, the term White and other contrasting racial colour terms, such as black, brown, yellow, and red, etc, came into wide use as a quick shorthand to refer to race.

By the 18^th century, "White" had begun shifting in meaning and started showing signs of becoming an exclusive label. European people, including European colonists in the New World, defined the other people with reference to "White." "Black" or "brown" people came to be defined by having darker skin than a "White" person, and the same "color" came to be applied to all non-white people.

Historic use of the term in the United States

The most recent United States Census (2000) defined the 'White' race as follows: "The term White refers to people having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa." It includes people who indicated their race or races as "White" or wrote in entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Israeli, Syrian, Lebanese, Portuguese, or Polish.

A flaw in current official US government parameters for race is that it gives national origin a racial value. Given the differences between common US understandings of white versus the official parameters, it can be somewhat problematic for peoples of Middle Eastern and North African heritage who for one reason or another are not commonly seen in social circles as white but are encompassed in the official definition. Reasons for this may include the heterogeneity of their populations, religious, linguistic or ancestral differences (please see below).

Another predicament is that by simply responding Israeli in the US census can lead to a person being categorised as "White". This disregards whether or not that Israeli (if Jewish) is actually of European descent (Ashkenazi), or for example, of Ethiopian descent (Falasha), Yemenite descent (Teimani), Indian descent (Indian Jews), etc.

white
black
mulatto

white
black
mulatto
Chinese
Indian

1.Is the person Spanish/Hispanic/Latino?

2.What is the person's race?

White
Black, African American
American Indian or Alaska Native
10 choices for Asian and Pacific Islander
Other

This census acknowledged that "the race categories include both racial and national-origin groups." See also Race (U.S. Census)

White
- British
- Any other White background
Mixed
- White and Black Caribbean
- White and Black African
- White and Asian
- Any other Mixed background
Asian or Asian British
- Indian
- Pakistani
- Bangladeshi
- Any other Asian background
Black or Black British
- Caribbean
- African
- Any other Black background
Chinese or other ethnic group
- Chinese
- Any other

Race in the US Federal Census
The 7^th federal census, in 1850, asked for Color:^*
The 10^th federal census, in 1880, asked for Color:^*
The 22^nd federal census, in 2000, had a "short form"^* that asked two race/ancestry questions:
Race in the UK Census
Census 2001 asked for a person's ethnic group:^*

German Americans

In the early United States, the term became more exclusive, coming to refer only to those of English heritage or persons to whom the term WASP applies. However, unlike most immigrant groups whose acceptance and inclusion as White came gradually, German immigrants quickly came to be accepted as White. See David R. Roediger, The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class (London: Verso, 1991) p. 32 for their earlier status. See op. cit. p. 142 for Stephen O. Douglas's acceptance, in his debates against Lincoln, that Germans are a "branch of the Caucasian race." See op. cit. p. 155 for anti-abolitionist tracts of 1864 accusing abolitionist German-Americans of having "broken their ties with the white race" by opposing slavery. Finally, see Frank W. Sweet, Legal History of the Color Line: The Rise and Triumph of the One-Drop Rule (Palm Coast FL: Backintyme, 2005) p. 332 and Leon F. Litwack, North of Slavery: the Negro in the Free States, 1790-1860 (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1961) p. 75 for the legislated disfranchisement of Pennsylvanians of African ancestry by the first state legislature controlled by German-Americans. German-Americans were also the largest group of immigrants during the 19th century, outnumbering both English and Irish immigrants, making German-Americans the largest ethnic group in the United States to this very day.

Irish Americans

In the 19th Century, Irish immigrants were often discriminated against due to their majority Catholic religion and a higher illiteracy rate than other whites. Irish fear of Protestant indoctrination in public schools is what led to the drive to open U.S. Catholic parochial schools, and eventually to the founding of Notre Dame University.

Eastern European and Slavic Americans

Eastern Europeans and Slavic Americans were classified as White at Ellis Island in the United States, although they experienced some cultural discrimination. Poland and Russia are today are among the most homogenous White nations.

Italian Americans

Mass immigration to the United States from Italy occurred during the late 19^th and 20^th century. All Italians were considered White upon arrival in the United States, however Southern Italians were classified as a different "nationality" primarily at the request of their Northern Italian counterparts.Thomas A. Guglielmo, White on Arrival: Italians, Race, Color, and Power in Chicago, 1890-1945, 2003, ISBN 0195155432 .

Italians sometimes fell victim to anti-Catholicism and cultural prejudices. Like the Irish Catholics who had preceded them, they were vulnerable to discrimination and prejudice from America's predominantly Protestant majority.

European Jewish Americans

According to one source — although not supported by census records of the period which recorded all Jews as White — European Jews in America did not become accepted as 'White' until the 1940s.Karen Brodkin, How Jews Became White Folks and What That Says About Race in America (New Brunswick NJ, 1998).

Jewish people desired assimilation. As early as 1911, German/American-Jewish anthropologist Franz Boas (1858-1952) purported in The Mind of Primitive Man, that "no real biological chasm separated recent immigrants from Mayflower descendants."Franz Boas, The Mind of Primitive Man (New York, 1911).

Hispanic Americans

Despite differences in ancestry from one Latin American to another, Americans and Canadians tend to label as Hispanic all such people — from the Southwestern United States and Mexico to Central America, South America and the Spanish-speaking Caribbean — as well as Spaniards, often erroneously giving it a "racial" value and with the irony that Spaniards, a European nation, is as such much whiter than the US. The term "non-Hispanic White" is used for clarity to designate members of the dominant cultures of the US. A question, however, is whether some, all, or no Hispanics are seen as White by non-Hispanic Whites.

Of the over 40 million Hispanics for the United States Census, 2000, a plurality of 48.6% identified as "White-Hispanic", 48.2% identified as "Hispanic-Hispanic" (most of whom are presumed to be mestizos), and the remaining 3.2% identified as "Black-Hispanic". Of those who identified as "White-Hispanic", many would also possess at least some Amerindian and/or black ancestry.

Judging by census intermarriage statistics, even non-White 'Hispanics' — that is, mestizos and mulattos — may be in the process of integrating into the majority community and often labeled as White. Mestizos and mulattos, however, are most often considered non-White. Ever since the 1960 census instructions allowed self-labeling, ninety percent of Puerto Ricans have identified as White, and the Hispanic/non-Hispanic-White intermarriage rate in the U.S. is now comparable to the out-marriage rates of Irish Americans or Jewish Americans.Clara E. Rodriguez, "Challenging Racial Hegemony: Puerto Ricans in the United States," in Race, ed. Steven Gregory and Roger Sanjek (New Brunswick NJ, 1994), 131-45.

Nevertheless, the media and Hispanic community leaders themselves in the U.S. nearly always refer to Hispanics as if a separate group from 'Whites' and the 'White majority', especially those who are discernably of mixed racial descent. This may be because 'white' is often used as shorthand for 'non-Hispanic white'. Federal agencies' standards have become more precise in this regard. The EEOC explicitly defines Hispanics as a separate and distinct "ethnicity."Employer Information Report EEO-1 and Standard Form 100, Appendix § 4, Race/Ethnic Identification, 1 Empl. Prac. Guide (CCH) § 1881, (1981), 1625. In apparent self-contradiction, this version of the regulation states that the distinct Hispanic "race" comprises, "All persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race". is the author's. Newer versions of this form ^* follow the Census Bureau in separating Hispanic self-identity from "racial" self-identity. On the decennial census form, a respondent who checks the Hispanic/Latino "ethnicity" box can, in a following question, also check one or more of the 5 official race categories. Supporters of this policy claim that statistics on Hispanics as a group must be collected in order to track discrimination, for affirmative action purposes, etc., in the same way that they are for non-White racial groups, and for women. The Bureau, in contrast, simply says that they are mandated to ask such questions by the U.S. Congress.

Mexican Americans

Mexicans were legally White at many times during the history of the United States, and in the last U.S census, in addition to stating their Hispanic national origin, around half of them checked the box for White. During the racial segregation era of the United States, Mexicans were allowed to intermarry with whites (unlike blacks and Asians); were allowed to get citizenship upon arrival (unlike Asian immigrants); served in all-white units during the Second World War (unlike blacks and Japanese); could vote and hold elected office in places such as Texas, especially San Antonio (unlike blacks); ran the state politics and elite of New Mexico since colonial times; and went to integrated schools in Central Texas and Los Angeles (unlike Blacks in the south and Asians in Southern California). Asians were also barred from marrying Mexican Americans in California because of the White legal status held by Mexicans.

During the Great Depression, however, Mexicans were largely considered non-White. Anywhere from one to two million people were deported in a decade-long effort by the government to "free up jobs" for those who were considered "real Americans" and rid the county governments of "the problem." The campaign, called the "Mexican Repatriation", was authorized by President Herbert Hoover and it targeted areas with large Mexican descended populations, mostly in California, Texas and Michigan. Although President Franklin Roosevelt ended federal support when he took office, many state and local governments continued with their efforts. It left festering emotional wounds that for many have not healed. Estimates now indicate that approximately 60 percent of the people deported were children who were born in America and others who, while of Mexican descent, were legal citizens. Many of these people returned to the United States during the labor shortages of World War II.

The 1930 U.S. census form asked for "color or race," and the census enumerators were given the instructions to write "Write 'W' for White...'Mex' for Mexican" From 1940 to the latter part of the century, however, the instructions were to regard Mexicans "as white unless definitely of Indian or other nonwhite race" [http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~vbashi/soc108-handout-census.htm, finally setting the official precedent of accounting Mexican national origin independantly from race. Mexicans would no longer be categorised as either all White or all non-White, and race would be assigned according to each individual.

Even when legally white, most Mexicans and Mexican Americans do have a mestizo heritage, a mixture of European and Amerindian. In Mexico itself, the white population (estimated at 9%) together with mestizos (estimated at 60%) constitute the majority population of that country, the rest being Amerindian or predominatly Amerindian (estimated at 30%) and 1% other. Even for the majority of Mexicans who can claim a European heritage (full or partial), most are still seen by other Americans as socially and racially non-White. Mexican Americans of unmixed European ancestry, or those who are mixed but with complete or predominant European features, may not not even be recognised to be "Mexican" and can be overlooked as simply being non-Hispanic white Americans. This would lower the perseption of the number of white Mexican Americans there actually are, as is the case with other white Hispanics also. On the other hand, many Mexicans and Mexican Americans view themselves as distinctly non-White, and proudly emphasise their descent from Amerindians (or more specifically the Aztecs and/or Mayans), and even among these is a minority that may appear "white".

North African and Middle Eastern Americans

As with other national or ethnic groups who have not been classified as "White" in past U.S history (in specific legal or popular contexts) but are today, North African and Middle Eastern Americans are today also classified as "White" by the U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. federal agencies group all Middle Easterners and North Africans as White. EEOC regulations explicitly define White as "peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East," and the Census Bureau's decennial form offers no check-box for such a self-identity under the "race" question.

The classification of North African and Middle Eastern Americans as White is largely in an American legal context, and various other countries account for them in non-White categories. Common non-governmental and social understandings of "White" differ from the country's official government definition. North African and Middle Easterners are usually not included within the general structural concepts of white-American society. This regional group includes Anatolian Turks, Arabs, Berbers, Iranians, Mizrahi Jews, Kurds, etc.

In the American context, the common contention of excluding these largely Caucasoid groups of North Africa and the Middle East from the popular definition of "White" (as opposed to the official government definition) has also been based on the argument that there is a significant sub-Saharan component in their populations ^* — a long-spanning presence throughout the history of that largely contiguous region. However, it has also been based on the argument of their disparate cultural, religious, linguistic heritage and ancestral origins.

While it is undeniable that many people in North Africa (Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, etc) and the Arabian Peninsula (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, etc.) have enough black African ancestry or are dark enough — at times being as dark-complexioned as some African Americans — to be considered black by popular U.S. standards, some may also be lighter-complexioned by comparison, comparable to Southern Europeans. And although some people of the Levant (Syria, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, Jordan, etc.) may also be as dark as those found in North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, here, many more are lighter-complexioned. Finally, a tiny percentage throughout the Middle Eastern and North African region as a whole may even resemble Northern Europeans.

See Haney-Lopez (1996) for a comprehensive list of U.S. Supreme Court decisions that repeatedly reversed prior U.S. Supreme Court decisions (back and forth many times) regarding whether or not Afghanis, Syrians, Asian Indians, and Arabians are White. Ian F. Haney-Lopez, White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race (New York: New York University, 1996), Appendix "A".

Asian Americans

Legal contradictions exist in United States Supreme Court rulings of "Whiteness" regarding Asian Americans. Compare Takao Ozawa v. United States (1922) and United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923). In the first case, the court ruled that Takao Ozawa, of Japanese descent, was not White, despite the fact that he was of a pale "white" complexion. The court stated that in U.S. law, anthropology overruled mere physical appearance (pigmentation). In the latter case, the court ruled that Bhagat Singh Thind, of Indian descent, was not white despite the fact that he was anthropologically Causasian. The court in this instance stated that in U.S. law, physical appearance overruled anthropology.

East and Southeast Asian Americans

Nineteenth-century Asian-American people of East and Southeast Asian origin were not considered White, though the label "Honorary Whites" (a term that today could be considered condescending) was sometimes applied (primarily to the Chinese). These Asian Americans have therefore always been termed and classified as Asian or as belonging to the "Mongoloid race".

In Jim Crow era Mississippi, however, Chinese-American children were allowed to attend Whites-only schools and universities, rather than attend segregated Black-only schools, and some of their parents became members of the infamous Mississippi "White Citizens' Council" who enforced anti-Black racism and Black segregation.James W. Loewen, The Mississippi Chinese: Between Black and White (Cambridge MA, 1971); Warren (1997), 200-18, 209-11.

Asian Indian and South Asian Americans

In the early 20^th century, the largely caucasoid people of Asian Indian or other Indian Sub-Continent origin were classified as racially "Hindu"^*. Between 1950 to 1970, they were classified as White, until an Indian-American group protested to the Office of Management and Budget to remove Indians from the White category, thus making Indian-Americans identify as racially "Asian Indian" in the U.S. Census. This regional group includes Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Indian Christians, Indian Jews, and various others.

African Americans

Due to the one-drop theory in the United States, for the past century or so, English-speaking Americans with any known African ancestry, no matter how slight or invisible, have often been categorized as Black. As detailed above, however, those of Hispanic, Middle Eastern or North African heritage are an exception, in that those who look European, or occasionally even those appearing mixed, are not labeled "Black" though they may have some sub-Saharan African ancestry, perhaps even acknowledging it.

The one-drop rule is historically recent. As mentioned above, before the 18th century, the terms "Black" and "White" did not designate groups. Before the Civil War, someone's "racial identity" depended on the combination of their appearance, African blood fraction, and social circle.See "Chapter 9. How the Law Decided if You Were Black or White: The Early 1800s" in Legal History of the Color Line: The Rise and Triumph of the One-Drop Rule by Frank W. Sweet, ISBN 0939479230. A summary of this chapter, with endnotes, is available online at | How the Law Decided if You Were Black or White: The Early 1800s.

Nevertheless, that the endogamous isolation of the African-American community has lasted for centuries is confirmed by DNA admixture studies. Many recent studies in genetics and molecular anthropology have shown that there is a surprisingly small degree of genetic overlap between members of the U.S. Black endogamous group and the U.S. White endogamous group. About one-third of all White Americans are found to have traces of African ancestry; they average about 23% African admixture.Although abstracts of most such peer-reviewed studies can be found in pubmed, a current index to recent admixture studies, along with full-text links, is available at: Various admixture studies. Black Americans as a whole also have some European admixture, averaging about 17 percent.Heather E. Collins-Schramm and others, "Markers that Discriminate Between European and African Ancestry Show Limited Variation Within Africa," Human Genetics 111 (2002): 566-69.

Eventually, in the United States, "black" came to denote African ancestry and "brown" became attributed to mixed-race Hispanics and South Asian Americans (people of the Indian subcontinent), though not much used. In Australia, on the other hand, "Black" denotes Aborigines and "Brown" came to denote South Asians and Middle Easterners/North Africans. See also Wog.

In Europe

A common 19^th century European view categorized most White people as either Semitic or Aryan. The latter term was used as a synonym for Indo-Europeans, who were conceived of as racially separate from Semitic peoples on the grounds that the two groups had distinct linguistic histories. This was thought to imply separate ancestry, which was supposed to be visible in different cultural and physical traits. The term Aryan derived from Indo-European speaking peoples who occupied ancient Iran and the Indus valley, a fact that problematised its equation with the term "White". However, from c. 1880 some writers theorised that the earliest Aryans came from northern Europe. This led to the Nazi claim that Aryans were identical with Nordic peoples. Later 20^th century scholars were much more reluctant to assume coincidence between linguistic and genetic descent, since language can be easily passed to genetically unrelated populations.

In Europe, the usage of the term "White" as a "racial indicator" had fallen out of use, considered obsolete if any. The terms of ethnicity and linguistics are widely employed for autochthonous peoples and immigrant communities alike.

In Latin America

While outside of the United States people of undiscernable African admixture are considered 'White' and those of slight African appearance are often called "coloured" or mixed race — a blanket term for people of multiple racial heritage — in Latin American countries even those of clearly visible partial African or Amerindian ancestry may be considered white. The individual, however, has to decide what, if any, race he/she is to be acknowledged by. Yet, while in all these countries there is a certain proportion of people that would at least appear to be of "unmixed" European ancestry, in places like the US they may be considered non-White.

Unlike in the United States, race in Latin America "refers mostly to skin color or physical appearance rather than to ancestry."Edward E. Telles, Race in Another America: The Significance of Skin Color in Brazil (2002), 1. ISBN 0691118663 "American orthodoxy is that a single drop of African blood inevitably darkens its host,"Eugene Robinson, Coal to Cream: A Black Man's Journey Beyond Color to an Affirmation of Race (1999), 26–27 ISBN 0684857227. in Latin America "the problem is approached from the other end of the scale: A single drop of European blood is seen to inevitably whiten... A person with discernible African heritage is not necessarily immutably black."For detailed sources and citations, see "Chapter 6. Features of Today's Endogamous Color Line" in Legal History of the Color Line: The Rise and Triumph of the One-Drop Rule'' by Frank W. Sweet, ISBN 0939479230. A summary of this chapter, with endnotes, is available online at Features of Today's Endogamous Color Line. Upward mobility, physical appearance and lighter skin colour allow for choice of an array of intermediate "categories". According to census takers' instructions in Brazil, "color" is explicitly defined as recording the subject's observed skin tone and has nothing to do with "race." Nevertheless, it has been shown that the same individual's perceived skin tone lightens and darkens on the Brazilian census depending on the rise and fall of his or her socioeconomic success. "Racial Inequality in Brazil and the United States: A Statistical Comparison". Journal of Social History 26 (2): 229-63.

Whiteness and White nationalism

The strictest definition held by most White nationalist groups around the world, whether White separatists or White supremacists, is that only those of total ancient ethnic indigenous European ancestry are 'White.'

White nationalists in the United States often have a definition of "Whiteness" that is much more limited than the official government definition of "Whiteness", in this case, requires not only an ancestry that is solely or overwhelmingly European, but also a psychological identification with the European ethnicity and a commitment to advance its interests. Under this definition, many peoples are excluded, such as Jews and Muslims, or more specifically, European Jews and European Muslims . Despite this "Whiteness" method used by White nationalists, as with many other racially-minded groups, the definitions still vary considerably.

Among some more exclusionist White nationalist groups, a serious ideological point is the bestowing of the "non-White" label upon ethnic European peoples of Southern European and Eastern European (Saami or Slavic) descent. Growing numbers of White nationalist groups in the United States, however, have now accepted Southern Europeans and Eastern European peoples as White. This is demonstrated in the description for membership in White nationalist organizations such as the National Alliance. The requirement for membership is that an individual be of "wholly European, non-Jewish ancestry."

On the other hand, some Southern Europeans, especially in Greece, but also in Italy and Spain, consider Northern Europeans as second-class whites, or descendants of barbarians, based on the perception that most civilizations associated with the white peoples were actually Mediterranean.

There are also those who push the idea of a White Proto-European race, and use the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b as a guide to their ancestry. This genetic marker is associated with the earliest settlers of Europe who took refuge in Iberia during the Ice Age. Today, it's predominant in Western European populations, particularly in Celtic areas of Britain and in the Iberian peninsula, especially in the Basque country.

Social vs. physical perceptions of White

Ultimately, whether any individual considers any other individual as White (or not) often comes down to whether the person "looks White," however, whether someone "looks White" can become a very subjective judgement. Physical appearance is often cited as the reason for categorizing entire nations as non-White. For instance, a large proportion of residents in the Arab world are dark-skinned enough to be classified as non-White by the standards of most Americans and Europeans, especially those originating from the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, and above all Sudan. On the other hand, some individuals of the same region may "look White", especially those originating from the Levant and parts of the Atlas Mountains. Historic black African genetic contribution in the peoples of the Middle East, however small or large, is also often cited as to their exclusion.

It is difficult to disentangle "social" from "physical" perceptions because the former depends upon the latter. How American attitudes changed over the centuries exemplifies this fact. As mentioned above, today Americans see German-Americans and Irish-Americans as physically White; otherwise they would be listed as "races" on the federal census. Jews as an ethno-religious group are an in-between category, though leaning more towards a generalised "White" classification. A complicating factor is that most Ashkenazi Jews (European Jews) more closely physically resemble other Europeans than they do peoples of the Middle East, while the reverse tends to be true regarding Mizrahi Jews (Middle Eastern and North African Jews), however, over 90% of the US Jewish population is Ashkenazi. Even this binary analysis of Jews is overly simplistic, and it ignores various other Jewish ethnic divisions (including Ethiopian Jews, Indian Jews, among many others).

The differences between social and physical definitions of White can be explained as identification of White with the dominant community or in-group, as opposed to the Other. In medieval Europe, Christendom was the community, and pagans, heretics, Jews, and Muslims were the outsiders, regardless of skin color. When the primacy of religion was eroded by the Protestant Reformation, the Renaissance, and secularism, separation of peoples based on religion shifted to concepts like White and civilized, although much of the earlier attitude remained, such as exclusion of peoples of different faiths. In the United States, White consciousness was first encouraged to help maintain a caste system and control of labor; then in the early 20^th century as a result of mass politics, the definition of White was widened to include Southern and Eastern Europeans.

The current social climate in the West (primarily in the United States) seeks to be nearly all-inclusive, which is an about-face from the social considerations of the 19^th and early 20^th centuries. This has prompted other groups to draw comparisons to the "one drop rule".

Social vs. official perceptions of White

The social vs. official perceptions of "White" is exemplified in the disparities between any given popular definition and the official parameters used in government definition in the same locale. As discussed for the United States, non-European populations which are largely caucasoid, such as Middle Easterners and North Africans, are typically perceived to be non-White despite the fact that for the purposes of statistics, these non-Europeans are categorised as "White" by US government agencies and the U.S. census. This official classification, however, is not based solely on anthropology, since other largely caucasoid peoples, such as South Asians, are not encompassed as "White" in either government or popular definitions.

Either way, governmental categorisation does not always lead to a sense of inclusion, as many may still be excluded from the general structural concepts of White-American society, and may even experience hostile rejection, particularly Arabs in recent years, especially if Muslim.

In Australia, Middle Easterners and North Africans — are not categorised as White, rather they are regarded as racial minorities (See: Wog). This latter understanding of the term in Australia has little to do with White supremacist exclusionism, but rather a traditional, narrower definition of White which has never encompassed Middle Easterners or North Africans; and which, unlike the definition of "White" in the United States, has not undergone continuous alterations to include an increasing number of people.

Criticisms of the term

The broad usage of "White" is sometimes criticized by those who argue that it de-ethnicizes various groups, although the same charge is not leveled at the question of ethnic diversity within blacks. During the era of Jim Crow Laws in the Southern United States, facilities were commonly divided into separate sections for White and "Colored" people. These terms were defined by White people, with White people classifying themselves as White and non-White people being classified as "colored".

"White" as opposed to "Light-Skinned"

There is sometimes controversy as to the difference between "light-skinned" as opposed to "White". The term "White" is a misnomer, as almost all people (regardless of race and origin) have pigmentation that makes their skin a color other than white, such as shades of brown or pink. It has been noted that the mixed descendants of light-skinned Arabs (like Ralph Nader) and other multi-racial individuals (like Keanu Reeves and Dean Cain) have been accepted as White by most Americans. In non-western countries, the terms white and light-skinned are sometimes used interchangeably.

The uniquely pale complexion and melanin-deficient hair common to Nordic adults is often considered the hallmark of those seen as White. This phenomenon's cline is densest within a few hundred miles of the Baltic Sea and, unlike other European skin-tone distributions, is independent of latitude (the natives of lands at higher latitudes than the Baltic are invariably darker than Nordics, for instance Eskimos). See Human skin color for an overall explanation of skin-tone distribution. See The Paleo-Etiology of Human Skin Tone for an explanation of the paleness of Nordics and the lack of variation in Native Americans. Genetic research shows that important areas around the Baltic and Scandinavia indicate a high genetic flow stemming from Asia. See Haplogroup N (Y-DNA).

World distribution

Since the era of European expansion, and especially since the 19^th century, most Europeans have come to see most other Europeans as White. Hence, one could say that the indigenous habitat of White people is Europe. Nowadays, countries with a majority of ethnic Europeans include all the nations of Europe, as well as some of the countries colonized by them through the 15^th century to 19^th century, such as the United States, Canada, Russia, Siberia, Australia, and New Zealand. In those nations, the indigenous populations were overwhelmed by White colonists from European nations.

It should be noted, though, that in some countries, including the United States, the identity as a white nation is often overemphasized, since it is more acurately a multiracial country above anything else. The media and parts of the population often favor the idea of presenting the country as a white nation, which reflects the social value placed on that concept.

As for Latin America, the only two countries whose population is composed by an undisputed majority of unmixed — or apparently unmixed — European descendants are Argentina and Uruguay. Both countries' populations are deemed to posess a white majority. In fact white people in Argentina and Uruguay make up 97% and 88% of the population respectively, according to the CIA World Factbook, a percentage that is much higher than in the United States of America. The southern region of Brazil also has a large White majority (85%), however, in the entire country Whites are estimated to make up 53.7% of the population. Although the latter figure would also constitute a White majority (ie. >50%) in Brazil, the figure may be considered inflated due to the above discussed socially fluid concept of race and racial identity in Latin America. Prior to 1959, Cuba had a majority white population of over 70%. Today, depending on the source, whites are said to constitute 37% to 65% of the population, with the remaining population being composed largely of mulattos. The majority of Cuban exiles are or consider themselves to be white. Additionally, while Chile and Costa Rica posses mestizo (mixed European and Amerindian) majorities, both countries are also quite European in that it is not uncommon for the admixture in many of their mestizos to lean more towards the European element (see also castizo). Many of these would simply identify as White, and up to 30% of Chile is deemed White. Various other Latin American countries also possess sizable White minorities, ranging between 10 and 20% of their populations, typically amidst mestizo or mulatto majorities.

There is a significant European-descended minority in South Africa, and smaller ones in Namibia, Zimbabwe, and other former European colonies in Africa.

Footnotes

External links

Legally white Precedents of legal opinions and judgments authored by US courts in whiteness cases filed by non-Europeans
Not Quite White: Race Classification and the Arab American Experience, by the Arab American Institute
Scientists Find DNA Change That Accounts for White Skin

Gourt Home::Gourt :: White (people)