How come Republicans are the most fervent Christians?
How come Republicans are the most fervent Christians?
[Disclaimer] - I am not an American and I consider myself atheist, I am Caucasian and born in a pre-dominantly Christian country.
Based on my limited knowledge of Christianity, it is all about social justice, compassion and peace.
And I was always wondering how come Republicans are perceiving themselves as devout Christians while the political party they support is openly opposing those virtues and if this doesn't make them hypocrites?
For them the mortal enemy are the lefties who are all about social justice, helping the vulnerable and the not so fortunate and peace.
Christianity sounds to me a lot more like socialist utopia.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Not a dictionary, thus not a credible source.
Let me help you out:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race
"The Caucasian race is an obsolete racial classification of humans based on a now-disproven theory of biological race. [...] In the United States, the root term Caucasian is still in use as a synonym for white or of European, Middle Eastern, or North African ancestry, a usage that has been criticized."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race
I understand why you might think Caucasian to mean something else despite person from the Caucasus despite being European: the US version of English is influential, due to the size of the country and the popularity of their media. Some British people have started saying "TV series" instead of "programme", for example, due to the influence of the US. You probably heard and read the adjective almost always in the incorrect US usage, because a) other nations don't obsess over ethnicity and b) the actual Caucasus not exactly being a common topic in the media. Hence, when you do hear the word, it is used the way the USA does, incorrectly.
I additionally linked to the specifically British edition of Collins as well for your benefit, which is, in fact, a dictionary. Seriously, trust me, if you go up to 5 Brits and ask them what Caucasian means, they will almost certainly all answer "white".
Wikipedia, also, is not a dictionary.
It's also pretty damn rude to classify the American usage as "incorrect", you're not the arbiter of what "real" English is.
Well, they're wrong. The Caucasus is where Georgia, Armenia and other countries are. Caucasians are people from the Caucasus.
Another academic source: "White, European, Western, Caucasian, or what? Inappropriate labeling in research on race, ethnicity, and health." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1509085
There is more: "Though discredited as an anthropological term and not recommended in most editorial guidelines, it is still heard and used, for example, as a category on forms asking for ethnic identification. It is also still used for police blotters (the abbreviated Cauc may be heard among police) and appears elsewhere as a euphemism. Its synonym, Caucasoid, also once used in anthropology but now dated and considered pejorative, is disappearing."
https://books.google.com/books?id=_hZHAAAAMAAJ
The United States National Library of Medicine discontinued usage in favor of the more narrow geographical term European, which traditionally only applied to a subset of Caucasoids. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/techbull/nd03/nd03_med_data_changes.html
What happened to "show me one dictionary"?
Looks like your goalposts have grown legs.
So, the common usage in both the country with the greatest number of English speakers AND the country the language originated in is incorrect? Because crispy_kilt says so?
Language is a socially negotiated system, so what the word means to the people who use it is what the words mean.
That paper is about what terminology should be used in academic work, who gives a fuck for people talking on lemmy?
The scale of annoyingness:
Pedants -> incorrect pedants -> incorrect pedants who insist they're right, regardless of the evidence in front of them
----------------------------------------------------| you are here
What happened to “show me one dictionary”?
I was honestly surprised with it listing the term with its common, but incorrect meaning, without as much as a hint to that end. You got me there!
Because crispy_kilt says so?
No. Please refer to the three academic sources I provided.
That paper is about what terminology should be used in academic work, who gives a fuck for people talking on lemmy?
That's like arguing "could of" to be correct English just because some people do it. Correctness is thankfully not what some believe, but something that has to be demonstrated with some rigour. If you discredit academic sources in favour of a popular misconception then I guess we will never agree.
Pedants -> incorrect pedants -> incorrect pedants who insist they’re right, regardless of the evidence in front of them
I mean, I provided several sources for my claim
But your sources have multiple flaws:
- firstly, they're all American, and so have no relevance to European English dialects
- secondly, they did not say "Caucasian does not mean white European", they say variations on "it is not the best term to use in academic literature"
So my source - despite being a highly reputable entity whose entire reason to exist is to define words - is "incorrect"?
"Could of" is different, because the social consensus is that it's grammatically incorrect. Your argument is more like arguing that antisemitic refers to Arabs as well, just because Semitic includes Arabic peoples. Just because a term is derived from another doesn't mean that it permanently must only be understood by its etymological roots.
Of course they're all from the US, they're the only ones who use the word that way. They're also the only ones obsessed with the ethnic origin of the various parts of their population. In England, a person with UK citizenship whose ancestors came from Africa 300 years ago isn't an African-Englishman, or a Black English, or some other racist bullshit like that, he's simply an Englishman. That's because the British aren't unhealthily obsessed with ethnic origin.
This of course makes it difficult to find UK examples of the correct usage of the term, as this whole topic doesn't really exist in a civilised nation.
Earlier we talked about European languages. I speak some of them.
French: Caucasien: Qui appartient au Caucase, chaîne de montagnes d’Asie. (Who is from the Caucasus, a chain of mountains in Asia.) https://www.le-dictionnaire.com/definition/caucasien
German: Kaukasier: Einwohnerbezeichnung (term for describing inhabitant) https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Kaukasier
Russian: кавказец: Жители, уроженцы Кавказа. (Inhabitant or native of the Caucasus) https://kartaslov.ru/значение-слова/кавказцы
See? One example from the most spoken language in Europe of each group, Latin, Germanic, Slavic.
They all agree.
Do you think the concept of race doesn't exist in Britain?!
I'll tell you it most definitely does, hell we practically invented systemic racism. Come to London and tell a black Brit that they aren't black and we'll see how that one goes down.
Just because words that look like "Caucasian" mean the other thing in German and french doesn't change it's English meaning. Congratulations on your language knowledge, but are not the genius you think you are.
I speak English, as an Englishman. Caucasian means white in British English.
Right then, you Caribbean. What do you mean you're not from the Caribbean? What does that have to do with anything? That word is obviously referring to the population of the British Isles. Duh.
That's how this sounds. It's ridiculous.
Well yeah that would be a great metaphor, if everyone in Britain referred to Britain as the Carribbean. But they don't, so it's deeply dumb.
I don't understand what you're caught up on.
British people use the word caucasian to mean white, and that is documented in British dictionaries.
I appreciate you take personal issue with that usage, but that's life, you don't control the English language.
A misconception being common does not make it correct.