GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268806368


From: RThrift <>
Subject: [DNA] re How many races
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:12:48 -0700
In-Reply-To: <mailman.3908.1268799477.12642.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com>


Wait -Pakistanis and Asian Indians are BOTH "caucasian," aren't they? so why in this census are they each allowed to have their own races? just because they tend to want to annihilate each other is no excuse.

Very interesting: [From Wikipedia] "The Supreme Court in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923) decided that Asian Indians – unlike Europeans and Middle Easterners – were Caucasian, but were not white, because most laypeople did not consider them to be white people. This was important for determining whether they could become naturalized citizens, then limited to free whites."

Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court:
"...It may be true that the blond Scandinavian and the brown Hindu have a common ancestor in the dim reaches of antiquity, but the average man knows perfectly well that there are unmistakable and profound differences between them to-day; and it is not impossible, if that common ancestor could be materialized in the flesh, we should discover that he was himself sufficiently differentiated from both of his descendants to preclude his racial classification with either. The question for determination [261 U.S. 204, 210] is not, therefore, whether by the speculative processes of ethnological reasoning we may present a probability to the scientific mind that they have the same origin, but whether we can satisfy the common understanding that they are now the same or sufficiently the same to justify the interpreters of a statute-written in the words of common speech, for common understanding, by unscientific men-in classifying them together in the statutory category as white pers!
ons. In 1790 the Adamite theory of creation-which gave a common ancestor to all mankind-was generally accepted, and it is not at all probable that it was intended by the legislators of that day to submit the question of the application of the words 'white persons' to the mere test of an indefinitely remote common ancestry, without regard to the extent of the subsequent divergence of the various branches from such common ancestry or from one another. "

More from Wikipedia:
"Not only were Indians denied the ability to naturalize, their new classification as Asian, rather than white, allowed the retroactive stripping of previously naturalized Indians of their American citizenship, because zealous prosecutors argued that Indian Americans had gained citizenship illegally, a claim often upheld. Moreover, without citizenship, Indian land owners fell under the net of the California Alien Land Law and other racist laws spearheaded by growing hatred against Asian immigrants. Specifically, Attorney General Ulysses S. Webb was very active in revoking Indian land purchases; in a bid to strengthen the Asiatic Exclusion League, he promised to prevent Indians from buying or leasing land. Under intense pressure, and with The Barred Zone Act of 1917 preventing fresh immigration to strengthen the fledgling Indian-American community, most Indians left the United States, leaving only half their population, 2,405, by 1940."

Is this a great country or what?

Richard Thrift

Original message:
From: John Lerch <>
At present there are over 6 billion races in the world. As it is written, "the race is not to the swift...".
6 billion is as good a number as any. People used to classify anyone who wasn't from around their own neighborhood as a savage. So even though many of the inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent are pretty closely related to European, they were discriminated against as much as other dark races.



This thread: