Yup. They're literally causasian/white, also in the US Census, but in the West they are perceived socially as brown and Middle Eastern, which is informative of how uninformed Westerners have been about the Middle East and Southwest Asia. Another socially perceived idiocy is the 'middle east', the space between the late 19th century Ottoman Empire (near east) and the 'far east', which is everything east of Iran. And since the fall of the Ottoman Empire (1922), everything in the near east is also in the middle east.
It's partially a problem that Caucasian is really a very broad ethnicity. So the question is which is the bigger problem. That people can't identify a Caucasian when they see one, or that people use the term Caucasian when they mean European? Arabs are also Cacasian.
So in that sense Persians are not white people. They are Caucasian, which is a hella broad category which includes groups that aren't white (European). It's so broad it's almost unuseful. Literally everyone fighting in this conflict is 90% Caucasian. The Americans, Gulf states, Persians, Israeli's (as much as they don't want to admit it). So if you wanted to pick a side based on race, and selected based on Caucasian-ness, you wouldn't know which side to pick.
Thanks for this, which has caused me to look up the term, because as you say, it's used to reference a very broad group of people. Part of the problem is that the US continues to use this term, which is based on scientific racism in the 1780s Göttingen school of history and has since been debunked. What originated as an attempt to scientifically distinguish between so-called, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid peoples became the general terms for skin colors (whites, yellow-reds, and blacks) though this taxonomy was based on skull and anatomical analyses, not skin tone. A map from 1850 shows part of the problem: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Meyers_map.jpg The Caucasus mountain range is a tiny aspect of the map. Regarding Iran: 'Caucasoid' 'Indo-Arians' supposedly did not originate in north-eastern or some of north-Western Iran, according to that map. Most of the theorists c. 1780-1850 working on this scientific racism were not personally very familiar with non-European peoples, and instead based their theories mainly on skulls, artefacts, illustrations and the occasional humans brought from distant colonies to be poked and prodded in European human zoos. Ironically, the same researchers, c. 1795 onward, also developed evidence that there were no sharp distinctions between the supposed racial groups, while they also believed in their racial taxonomies. So, a racial system identifying people by skin color was not itself based on skin color, but on skulls. Whites apparently have the prettiest skulls, according to them. Where were we... are Iranians white or brown? According to debunked white supremacist "scientific" racism, there are Caucasoid and Mongoloid peoples in Iran. A better answer to the question is: no, Iranians are not distinctly white, or black, or brown, or Mongoloid. Their appearances are related more closely to their geographical location. They look like Southwest Asian peoples.
The biggest problem in feeding people is really distribution. But we've kind of screwed that up when it all runs on oil and we just needlessly attacked someone whose only viable response is to choke the global oil supply.
Tax cuts in the first Trump admin cost $10 trillion, and last year's tax cuts will cost another $10 trillion, to be paid by the 99%.
Meanwhile national debt is at $39 trillion and there is no legitimate reason to spend a $billion/day bombing other countries.
All of this, and the Epstein files, and paramilitary masked larpers kidnapping people at random, and so much more anxiety-causing news about corruption and abuse on the hill is being normalized at a time when an increasing number of Americans are finding it impossible to afford rent, food, or to get healthcare. The priorities of those in power are destroying the middle class. I think we need to remember that if we don't do something about it, the US will be a 3rd-world country in a few years, and in some parts of the US, Americans are alredy living in cars and dying in the millions (recent stats) because of no healthcare. But the US instead wants to increase the national debt $2 trillion/year by committing war crimes and destroying the middle class.
Log in
I thought Persians were considered white people.
Yup. They're literally causasian/white, also in the US Census, but in the West they are perceived socially as brown and Middle Eastern, which is informative of how uninformed Westerners have been about the Middle East and Southwest Asia. Another socially perceived idiocy is the 'middle east', the space between the late 19th century Ottoman Empire (near east) and the 'far east', which is everything east of Iran. And since the fall of the Ottoman Empire (1922), everything in the near east is also in the middle east.
It's partially a problem that Caucasian is really a very broad ethnicity. So the question is which is the bigger problem. That people can't identify a Caucasian when they see one, or that people use the term Caucasian when they mean European? Arabs are also Cacasian.
So in that sense Persians are not white people. They are Caucasian, which is a hella broad category which includes groups that aren't white (European). It's so broad it's almost unuseful. Literally everyone fighting in this conflict is 90% Caucasian. The Americans, Gulf states, Persians, Israeli's (as much as they don't want to admit it). So if you wanted to pick a side based on race, and selected based on Caucasian-ness, you wouldn't know which side to pick.
Thanks for this, which has caused me to look up the term, because as you say, it's used to reference a very broad group of people. Part of the problem is that the US continues to use this term, which is based on scientific racism in the 1780s Göttingen school of history and has since been debunked. What originated as an attempt to scientifically distinguish between so-called, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid peoples became the general terms for skin colors (whites, yellow-reds, and blacks) though this taxonomy was based on skull and anatomical analyses, not skin tone. A map from 1850 shows part of the problem: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Meyers_map.jpg The Caucasus mountain range is a tiny aspect of the map. Regarding Iran: 'Caucasoid' 'Indo-Arians' supposedly did not originate in north-eastern or some of north-Western Iran, according to that map. Most of the theorists c. 1780-1850 working on this scientific racism were not personally very familiar with non-European peoples, and instead based their theories mainly on skulls, artefacts, illustrations and the occasional humans brought from distant colonies to be poked and prodded in European human zoos. Ironically, the same researchers, c. 1795 onward, also developed evidence that there were no sharp distinctions between the supposed racial groups, while they also believed in their racial taxonomies. So, a racial system identifying people by skin color was not itself based on skin color, but on skulls. Whites apparently have the prettiest skulls, according to them. Where were we... are Iranians white or brown? According to debunked white supremacist "scientific" racism, there are Caucasoid and Mongoloid peoples in Iran. A better answer to the question is: no, Iranians are not distinctly white, or black, or brown, or Mongoloid. Their appearances are related more closely to their geographical location. They look like Southwest Asian peoples.
https://goatmatrix.net/c/default/3BPUxJUyEA#AZM5Tdznjb
The biggest problem in feeding people is really distribution. But we've kind of screwed that up when it all runs on oil and we just needlessly attacked someone whose only viable response is to choke the global oil supply.
Great point, re. oil. Also, joining in Israel's war crimes and other expensive projects for old rich assholes added a $trillion to the national debt in the past 5 months: https://thehill.com/business/economy/5791522-us-national-debt-39-trillion
Tax cuts in the first Trump admin cost $10 trillion, and last year's tax cuts will cost another $10 trillion, to be paid by the 99%.
Meanwhile national debt is at $39 trillion and there is no legitimate reason to spend a $billion/day bombing other countries.
All of this, and the Epstein files, and paramilitary masked larpers kidnapping people at random, and so much more anxiety-causing news about corruption and abuse on the hill is being normalized at a time when an increasing number of Americans are finding it impossible to afford rent, food, or to get healthcare. The priorities of those in power are destroying the middle class. I think we need to remember that if we don't do something about it, the US will be a 3rd-world country in a few years, and in some parts of the US, Americans are alredy living in cars and dying in the millions (recent stats) because of no healthcare. But the US instead wants to increase the national debt $2 trillion/year by committing war crimes and destroying the middle class.
Without the debt what could possibly make (((them))) happy?
Eugenics. Genocide the 99% and keeping a few for breeding, and saving the 1% to live in underground bunkers while nukes go off.
Let's not do either just lower taxes