<p>Yeah, Indians in general (by which I mean, of course, INDIA Indians, not native americans) are considered caucasian. Actually Middle-Easterners are also considered caucasian.</p>
<p>"The term Caucasian race, Caucasian or Caucasoid is used to refer to people whose ancestry can be traced back to Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent and parts of Central Asia."</p>
<p>There's nothing racist about talking about white people's chances to get into Brown. But so far, there has been one comment that implied racism, and it wasn't particularly vindictive either. It was more of a dissertation type proposition. Frankly, calling anything on this looks prepackaged.</p>
<p>I don't believe Middle Easterners are considered to be caucasians. I believe they are considered semitics (which means more than just Jewish, despite the term "anti-Semitic"). Iranians, though, are caucasian. Aryans, to be more specific. Northern India is also predominantly aryan caucasians. Southern Indians are part of a separate "race" called "dravidian", though I don't know what the term really means. </p>
<p>Also, the term "white" has its own complcations. "Hispanic" not being a race, all those in South America not Mestizo are classified as white, though not always as caucasian. White refers exclusively to skin colour. </p>
<p>To whoever said it, sure, race mixing is common. Race mixing may not be common everywhere, but it is abundant where the social dynamics are such that there are no cultural restrictions on it. Take a nation like Brazil. Or New York City. Or the city where I live, Vancouver. That interracial mixing is common here is the biggest indicator that biological speciation is not what is at work, unless you seriously contend that the populations of Brazil, New York, and Vancouver as a whole are cladogenically speciating on their own. Which is of course ludicrous. </p>
<p>People's preference for their own race in mating is not indication of speciation. In the past, people had more of a preference for their own ethnicity, which would have meant that each nation was speciating. Also, by this reasoning, the preference of blondes by many guys - not shared by me, but in any case - would mean blondes are a different race. Most animals are not social - Drosophila flies certainly are not - so selective mating, where it occurs, is much more clear cut. (Does a queen's mating with only its own drones make each beehive its own species?) But one thing's for sure. If you want to count one instance of preferred choice in mates, you have to count all of them.</p>
<p>I did not mean to imply racism..am just kind of tired of people classifying. It seems to me that more problems are created by classifying people (by looking back in history as well as present day global conflicts). In a country made up of so many people from different ethnic backgrounds, it only makes sense that present and future generations are often mixed racially. At what point does classifying become unrealistic? What is the real need for classifying anyway? If we did away with these labels, perhaps people would become more accepting of others as people instead of as a certain member of a race, ethnicity, religion. I like to look at the world through rose-colored glasses : )</p>
<p>"take a nation like Brazil. Or New York City."</p>
<p>thank you for recognizing that NYC should be it's own nation, it's about time some more people got on board.</p>
<p>Lol (10 char)</p>
<p>many indians in northern india are mixed with aryans (people originating from the aral sea region in southern russia), and aryans are caucasians.</p>