Well I appreciate you honestly trying to address the question. Let's take it by parts.



Quote Originally Posted by DenilsonTheReturn View Post

As for as white people

All whites are Caucasian, but not all Caucasians are white.

Dravidians (Indians, Pakistans, Afghanistan, Nepal, Maldives, and Sri Lankans) and Arabs (Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia) are considered Caucasians.

You Google "Caucasian", and you get this:

Cau·ca·sian
kôˈkāZHən
adjective
1. NORTH AMERICAN
white-skinned; of European origin.
"twenty of the therapists were Caucasian, two were African American, and two were Hispanic"
2. relating to the Caucasus.
noun
1. NORTH AMERICAN
a white person; a person of European origin.
"the man is described as being a 50-year-old Caucasian with a full head of graying hair"
2. a person from the Caucasus.
"the Caucasians of Southern Russia"


The North American part of the Google definition would appear to contradict your statement.
Yet you look up the term in Wikipedia, and it says, among other things, this:

"The Caucasian race (also Caucasoid[1] or Europid)[2] is a grouping of human beings historically regarded as a biological taxon, which, depending on which of the historical race classifications used, have usually included some or all of the ancient and modern populations of Europe, the Caucasus, Asia Minor, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia, Central Asia and South Asia.[3]

First introduced in the 1780s by members of the Göttingen School of History,[4] the term denoted one of three purported major races of humankind (Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid).[5] In biological anthropology, Caucasoid has been used as an umbrella term for phenotypically similar groups from these different regions, with a focus on skeletal anatomy, and especially cranial morphology, over skin tone.[6] Ancient and modern "Caucasoid" populations were thus held to have ranged in complexion from white to dark brown.[7] Since the second half of the 20th century, physical anthropologists have moved away from a typological understanding of human biological diversity towards a genomic and population-based perspective, and have tended to understand race as a social classification of humans based on phenotype and ancestry as well as cultural factors, as the concept is also understood in the social sciences.[8] Although Caucasian / Caucasoid and their counterparts Negroid and Mongoloid have been used less frequently as a biological classification in forensic anthropology (where it is sometimes used as a way to identify the ancestry of human remains based on interpretations of osteological measurements), the terms remain in use by some anthropologists.[9]

In the United States, the root term Caucasian has also often been used in a different, societal context as a synonym for "white" or "of European ancestry".[10][11] Its usage in American English has been criticized.[12]"


So Wikipedia would seem to back up your claim, as well as question the Google definition. As you read further, it appears the term has morphed over time and, not only has its usage in American English been criticized, as stated above.... but some even write about whether the term is outdated and even needed any more. This is all quite interesting to me, as I'll admit to not knowing about the history of the Caucasian term before now.


Quote Originally Posted by DenilsonTheReturn View Post
How many whites exist or “who is white” is just a matter of where they decide to make the cutoff point somewhere between Nordic and Dravidian. Russians don’t think the immigrants from the Caucasus region are “white”, even though to me they look white. Yet some consider Persian and Lebanese white and even some Aryan Indians.

That’s where “white” and "race" as a social construct comes into play — namely, defining exactly who in that Caucasian continuum gets to join the white club.

Now we get to the crux of the matter and the original question. Who is "white" and who isn't. But my point goes beyond trying to define whether Dravidians, Persians, or Lebanese are considered "white" and by whom. It also includes the massive and ever-growing amount of cross breeding between all these races/ ethnicities (call them what you like). This "continuum" you refer to is far more blurry and undefined, and becomes even more so as time goes on. You've got combinations of combinations of combinations to the Nth power.

Kudos for finally providing a serious answer to a serious question, and not talking about "blacks banging whites" or anything like that. I myself can be viewed "white" by some, "non-white" by others. I'm a Puerto Rican with Italian ancestry. Two brothers came from Italy in the 1800's and settled on the island.... says the family tree I came out of. But Puerto Rico is notorious for having a vast mixture of cultures in one big melting pot, much like the States. Most of us have Spaniard blood, African blood, native Indian blood, North American blood, etc, etc. You can find blond, blue-eyed Puerto Ricans, and black Puerto Ricans.

One thing I enjoy about living and having been raised in Puerto Rico is the lack of racial issues (or even separation) that you see in the States.

But back to my original question: At what point do you draw the "line" between black and white? My own answer would be that nowadays it's almost an impossible task. Again, the "combinations of combinations" thing. But I admit it depends who you ask. You ask some people I've met in life, and they'll say I'm not "white" and neither is any Puerto Rican, Mexican, Arab, Indian, or any of a host of other origins other than Europe..... and that would probably come with some asterisks attached.

I've seen racism of the worst kind up close and personal. Never against me personally, thankfully...... but still close enough to be troubling in its nature. Not having been raised as a race-conscious person, racism is something I have a hard time coming to grips with. Tell you the truth, it's nauseating. Because it portrays ignorance. But the door swings both ways, Denilson. There's racism against blacks, Latinos, Asians, etc. But there's also racism against whites.

I could fill several pages with dozens if not hundreds of anecdotes relating to race..... many negative, but some positive. But I'm afraid it would drag on and on.

Still, I'll leave you with the original question, now asked from me to you. How do YOU differentiate between "white" person and a "non-white" person, in order to determine whether that person is a White Supremacist or not? I have to ask, because if we ever met on the street, I'd like to know how you view me.