Photo-real portraits of Roman emperors

I do not know how it can be sociologically but I could have sexual relations with someone of another race but if I have the information that someone is a pro-independence or extreme leftist who supports the pro-independence movement, they would not have sexual relations, nor would they be desperate.
 
""The obsession of American people (whether racist or self-purportedly anti-racist ones) with skin color is just unhealthy,""
Should be more... Multicultural. I heard the East Asian are obsessed with light skin, and a lot of people from India. Further a lot of Europeans. For me skin color is just that, nothing more. But differences do exist, doesn’t make anybody better. Not every place has to look like Queens New York or Brazil. That’s what makes the world unique, Ireland, Japan, Italy, Iran, Nigeria, Israel, Etc. I for one don’t want us all to blend. That destroys diversity.
 
It seems incredible to me that you say that you have never been to Spain to give an opinion. Truly throughout the American continent from top to bottom there are criteria on this subject that are not the ones we have in Western Europe, perhaps in Eastern Europe they are also different or it is convenient for them to do so. I already said that I have to make an effort to talk about these issues since it is not a priority issue nor is strictly observed a white tone literally speaking since the most natural or normal here in addition to the literal white go to beige and what perhaps for A European from Eastern Europe is dark here it is not so dark, it is possible that in North America or the entire American continent it is even more strict than in Eastern Europe, I don't know, I am based on what I am seeing on the forums.


don't use the term white. that simple. use westeurasian or caucasian if you have to, but there is no reason anymore to talk about "whites".
 
@Ygorcs
Where I live, people don't give a damn what color you are, and generally we’re very kind with each other.

What you watch on TV is the exception to the rules.

... and you, as a Brazilian should know better ... than bashing America for ... that!

... is also Election season and the bias media sensationalize stuff ...

I'm not bashing America at all. Quit this silly nationalism. You can "bash Brazil" all you want as long as it's about racism as it really is in Brazil's historical journey. Why would I care? I want my country to get past its mistakes, not defend it where its worst social aspects just because it's my country. I'm not even talking about what people give a damn about, but about the excessive focus on skin color to determine who is white or non-white, black or non-black, with little room for other racial labels and other concepts, which makes a lot of people, even American and US-influenced blacks, suppose out of the blue that North Africans, Arabs and other generally brown-skinned people can only be "blacks that mixed too much with whites" or vice-versa. The binary dichotomy is deeply ingrained. It doesn't necessarily mean people will treat you different because of that, but the simplistic and extremely color-based racial ideas are still there, even if just lurking the public debate so subtly that people who grew up into it can't even notice it anymore (but foreigners like me, raised in other environment, are, believe me, much more likely to notice those culturally different concepts about people and the world than a local).

It's simply a fact that the kind of racism that exists in the USA has a history of a much more binary, literally black-and-white racial classification. The vast majority of the laughably simplistic reduction of the racial debate to the amount of melanin in one's skin (generally with an implied notion that white is the standard, everything else is automatically lumped together as something black or closer to black) came and still come from the USA or via USA-influenced social movements elsewhere, it's a fact, and there are very clear historical reasons for that. Nowhere else did the racial classification system get as marked by a clear-cut dichotomy as in the USA (perhaps not even in apartheid South Africa, where coloreds did get official acknowledgement as not really white, but not really black either). Don't get personal and defensive. Maybe being American you don't notice that, particularly since - you're assuring us of this - you live in such a marvelous place surrounded only by great people, so you're away from the elements of society that have spread that kind of thought about race, with its insane obsession over paleness (to the point that everything less than really white was usually supposed to imply some "hybridization" with blacks). You wouldn't get one drop rule anywhere else if a lot of people didn't already think about race in those strictly binary terms, thus serving as justifying premises for that policy.

As a Brazilian I do know better, rest assured, so I do know that Brazilian-style racism is different, and people have usually had a much more nuanced, complicated and less binary (white vs. black) system to classify other people, so people have always been perfectly capable of always getting that having dark skin doesn't mean you're black in the sense of someone of African origin. Hardly would a Brazilian progressive trying to be "woke" believe that they'd making a huge favor to black people''s role in History simply by depicting people of Iberian, Italian or Gothic origin with much more melanin than they certainly had, because it'd still be obvious to most of us that that doesn't make them "black", just darker-skinned Europeans that are not ancestral to any discriminated against minority today, but just ancestral to the Europeans. In a Brazilian mindset people are used to the idea that there are lots of different races and skin tones since the colonial era, even siblings can be said to be "different" racially. Skin color and racial/genetic origin are conceptualized as more clearly distinct things. It's a racist country, but racist in a different way and on a distinct historical basis. So, you can talk about Brazilian racism. I have no problem with that. I actually want people to talk more about it. Problems are not solved if we just keep telling us that it's all past and only some random and rare exceptions.
 
""The obsession of American people (whether racist or self-purportedly anti-racist ones) with skin color is just unhealthy,""
Should be more... Multicultural. I heard the East Asian are obsessed with light skin, and a lot of people from India. Further a lot of Europeans. For me skin color is just that, nothing more. But differences do exist, doesn’t make anybody better. Not every place has to look like Queens New York or Brazil. That’s what makes the world unique, Ireland, Japan, Italy, Iran, Nigeria, Israel, Etc. I for one don’t want us all to blend. That destroys diversity.

I'm not talking about that kind of "obsession" (which is more aesthetic than racial, i.e. East Asians don't believe they can classify people as different races simply based on how much melanin they have, they don't see their darker-skinned fellows as "another race" or a "hybrid with blacks"). I'm rather commenting about the debate and attitudes about race and ethnicity (actually, even the utter conflation between the two so common in the Anglo-Saxon world is another proof of what I'm saying), which is right under the surface still very influenced by a very polarized black vs. white racial dichotomy even in groups that claim to be fighting racism. E.g. just yesterday I saw some black activist claiming Egypt was black even if they had indeed come from a heavily Natufian-like population because Natufians were black Africans... his main point? The Mahra/Mehri people are dark-skinned and have curly hair, so apparently that makes them black Africans instantly; another one was claiming that if you're dark-skinned then you're black - hmm, so apparently racial origin = melanin -, so all the world was black until the "pale invaders" or something crazy like that came and stole their legacy; and the same comments, always still marked by a kind of thought steeped in "one drop rule" and a very simple racial dichotomy, are seen in comments by white "nationalists". Only such a kind of deeply ingrained and underlying conceptualization of race, extremely obsessed about paleness vs. darkness (darkness being anything less than reeeeeally white), can explain the kinds of things we read and see, like these ridiculously dark-skinned reconstructions of Roman emperors: it's obvious that the author thinks he's promoting diversity and black pride simply by making ancient Europeans have more melanin.
 
don't use the term white. that simple. use westeurasian or caucasian if you have to, but there is no reason anymore to talk about "whites".

They are terms that are used so that we can understand each other according to the context, whether or not they are more or less current, otherwise any topic will be impossible to deal with. Is it the crystal generation or what is this? It must be global from what I see. In generations ago people hunted things and concepts on the fly, these generations now have to give it all chewed up and you can't use your imagination and you pretend not to understand this or that, well, the older generations can also start to demand little things. to the crystal generation to see what happens.

I will use the terms that I deem appropriate at all times.

In any case, in this part of the world, I think that the morphology or structure of the face is more recognizable for Europe.


I trust that the patterns and way of looking at these issues will be rejected in Europe Although perhaps for socio-economic reasons Eastern Europe will be interested depending on its relations socioeconomic with the U.S.A.

Since the American countries seem to be eager for Europeanity, ok that they take away Spain and Portugal and some more and they put themselves with a bridge or a tunnel.
 
When I was a youngster I was taught that race did not exist as a scientific concept. That was the liberal/progressive viewpoint as well. What changed?

white as a racial category makes only sense if it means westeurasian. otherwise it is not a racial group and more based on culture. in the US it is used for westeurasian at least officially. unofficially i'm not that sure, i mean, why would people still use the term white when caucasian or westeurasian is way better? but in europe it certainly is not the same. so in europe it is 100% having 0 sense as a racial category. you can see that very well because everyone has a different opinion on who is white and who isn't but in terms of beeing caucasian or westeurasian it is more clear. not completely clear either but certainly better.
 
They are terms that are used so that we can understand each other according to the context, whether or not they are more or less current, otherwise any topic will be impossible to deal with. Is it the crystal generation or what is this? It must be global from what I see. In generations ago people hunted things and concepts on the fly, these generations now have to give it all chewed up and you can't use your imagination and you pretend not to understand this or that, well, the older generations can also start to demand little things. to the crystal generation to see what happens.

I will use the terms that I deem appropriate at all times.

In any case, in this part of the world, I think that the morphology or structure of the face is more recognizable for Europe.


I trust that the patterns and way of looking at these issues will be rejected in Europe Although perhaps for socio-economic reasons Eastern Europe will be interested depending on its relations socioeconomic with the U.S.A.

Since the American countries seem to be eager for Europeanity, ok that they take away Spain and Portugal and some more and they put themselves with a bridge or a tunnel.

but "white" doesn't equal european in the US, where it is mostly used. first it was meant only for anglos then it opened up and included more and more people until it included most westeurasian people. that's probably because you can't just stop somewhere since there are too many overlaps. and honestly if you think europeans form a seperate racial group then i think it is not that much more illogical if someone else tries to exclude spaniards from that group while including all the other westeurasians or if he thinks that for example anglos form a seperate racial group.
 
don't use the term white. that simple. use westeurasian or caucasian if you have to, but there is no reason anymore to talk about "whites".

right or wrong, some of my State IDs have a “W” on it, so like it or not, white is a ‘Legal’ and perfectly appropriate word to use :)

... it’s just an extra Identification feature in a multi-ethnic society, I think.
 
Nothing has changed, at least in US, I think.Yes, I agree with Ygorcs about the ‘binary vision’ of Anglo-Saxons about ethnicity: It’s black or white, and just one drop turns you a black, even if your specific phenotype seems very white. If your name or surname seems ‘Hispanic’, this turns you automatically a ‘non white’ as said Carlos. It’s things of Puritans, I think. Many immigrants suffered discrimination along the timelines when arrived in US, although its European origin, like Irish, Italian , South-Germans, just to pointed some ethnicities. Afrocentrism and white suprematism are, basically, American phenomena. In Brazil an organization like KKK never would be considered legal, even in the current misgovernment in which we live . Yes, There is racism in Brasil. Brazil is a racist country. But the racism is not directed simply in reason of the color of your skin, but, basically, to your appearance and social status. The police will not approach you at random in a street if you look white. The same is not true of those who look like 'non-whites': Sad truth in Brazil.

In Brazil, no identification document will indicate your ethnicity, except on your birth certificate and, for men, on your reservist certificate, that shows your ethnicity, the color of your eyes and your height.
 
In Brazil, no identification document will indicate your ethnicity, except on your birth certificate and, for men, on your reservist certificate, that shows your ethnicity, the color of your eyes and your height.

Just a small correction: for 99.5% of Brazilians (those who aren't still indigenous in an ethnic sense, i.e. with their own distinctive cultural identity and so on), those documents will only indicate your skin color/physical phenotype. The concept of race in Brazil became so blurred and variable (very far from the black vs. white dichotomy I was talking about in other comments, which lead "woke" people to think they're doing something pro-black by depicting veeeeeery tanned European emperors) that when peope talk about "race" they're really saying how someone looks like in skin complexion and a few other traits (generally lips, nose and hair texture): white, brown, black, yellow (i.e. East Asian-like looks). As I said, it's different. There is a lot of racism, but the concepts that underly it are just different. Race is not as conflated with ethnicity and with one's origins as in US-style racial thought. To the large majority of Brazilians it is pretty "obvious" that a light-skinned Pakistani or Saudi is white, no matter where their roots come from. Conversely, an individual with pretty brown skin, but not that dark, but of mostly European origin (and very visibly so in traits like face, hair, eyes etc.), will hardly be described as black, but as "brown" or "tanned" or something like that. That's why I notice very easily when a black activist in Brazil is being heavily influenced by US racial discourse and debate or not. The way to think about phenotype, genotype and racial classification is just not the same.
 
Just a small correction: for 99.5% of Brazilians (those who aren't still indigenous in an ethnic sense, i.e. with their own distinctive cultural identity and so on), those documents will only indicate your skin color/physical phenotype. The concept of race in Brazil became so blurred and variable (very far from the black vs. white dichotomy I was talking about in other comments, which lead "woke" people to think they're doing something pro-black by depicting veeeeeery tanned European emperors) that when peope talk about "race" they're really saying how someone looks like in skin complexion and a few other traits (generally lips, nose and hair texture): white, brown, black, yellow (i.e. East Asian-like looks). As I said, it's different. There is a lot of racism, but the concepts that underly it are just different. Race is not as conflated with ethnicity and with one's origins as in US-style racial thought. To the large majority of Brazilians it is pretty "obvious" that a light-skinned Pakistani or Saudi is white, no matter where their roots come from. Conversely, an individual with pretty brown skin, but not that dark, but of mostly European origin (and very visibly so in traits like face, hair, eyes etc.), will hardly be described as black, but as "brown" or "tanned" or something like that. That's why I notice very easily when a black activist in Brazil is being heavily influenced by US racial discourse and debate or not. The way to think about phenotype, genotype and racial classification is just not the same.

Yes, thanks for the clarification, Ygor. The birth certificate and the reservist certificate are non-mandatory personal documents and must only be displayed in situations provided for law. In the mandatory document of carry, which may be the ID, the driver's license, the ID issued by an regulated profession council or the functional identity, the last one in case of a public servant, there is no reference to the ethnicity or skin’s color.
 
none of the Emperors had just a big full Mustache, :-I ... just sayin’

... beard doesn't count :)
 
Last edited:
none of the Emperors had just a big full Mustache, :-I ... just sayin’

... beard doesn't count :)

(y) It is true Salento. I never saw a representation of a Roman emperor wearing a mustache. The smooth face of many Roman emperors may be due to the fact that it was in the Roman Civilization that the first shaving creams, based on olive oil, appeared. The custom of using the mustache in Europe came with the Visigoths who lived in the Iberian Peninsula and were known for their great mustaches. In English, “bigot” is someone intolerant of different opinions, which is consistent with the fame of the Visigoths. The word came from “bigoth”, i.e., “visigoth”. In Portuguese “mustache” means “bigode”, I.e. “Visigoth”.
 
right or wrong, some of my State IDs have a “W” on it, so like it or not, white is a ‘Legal’ and perfectly appropriate word to use :)

... it’s just an extra Identification feature in a multi-ethnic society, I think.

in the US white means officially everyone from europe, north africa and near east. why is the US not just writing westeurasian or caucasian instead of white on your ID's? why do you still use this term "white" when unofficially everyone has a different opinion on who belongs there and who doesn't?
 
in the US white means officially everyone from europe, north africa and near east. why is the US not just writing westeurasian or caucasian instead of white on your ID's? why do you still use this term "white" when unofficially everyone has a different opinion on who belongs there and who doesn't?

I don’t know, I didn’t ask, they just looked at me, ...
 

This thread has been viewed 74587 times.

Back
Top