If its "ok" to call a caucasian person white, and "ok" to call a dark skinned person black, then why.........?

And home-schooling scores again!

.

An often mentioned third but not proven[1] [2]origin involves the bloody skins (red-skins) of Native people as "prizes," in which they would be scalped after battle and their skins bought and sold in local towns.[3]

According to conservative writer Dinesh D'Souza, "Blumenbach's classification had a lasting influence in part because his categories neatly broke down into familiar tones and colors: white, black, yellow, red, and brown."[7][8]

Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840), one of the founders of what some call scientific racism theories, came up with the five color typology for humans: white people (the Caucasian or white race), more or less black people (the Ethiopian or black race), yellow people (the Mongolian or yellow race), cinnamon-brown or flame colored people (the American or red race) and brown people (the Malay or brown race). Blumenbach listed the "races" in a hierarchic order of physical similarities: Caucasian, followed by American, followed by Mongolian, followed by Malayan, followed by Ethiopian.

One of the earlier uses of the concept of “black” as a metaphor for race was first used at the end of the 17th century when a French doctor named François Bernier (1625-1688), an early proponent of scientific racism, divided up humanity based on facial appearance and body type.

He proposed four categories: Europeans, Far Easterners, Lapps, and Blacks.[2] The first major scientific model was created in 18th century when Carolus Linnaeus recognized four main races: Europeanus which he labeled the white race, Asiatic, which he labeled the yellow race, Americanus, which he labeled the red race, and Africanus, which he labeled the black race.[3] Linnaeus' protégé, anthropology founder Johann Blumenbach completed the model by adding the brown race, which he called "Malay" for Polynesians and Melanesians of Pacific Islands, and for aborigines of Australia.[4] Rand McNally's map of races describes Amerindians as being the copper race or copper people.[5]

I am an Asian. And judging from my skin color, it is not yellow nor those native persons' skins red. So saying yellow or red is offensive, or rather discriminatory.

who says it's bad? why do you care and yeah, white people really have the "whitest" color of skin and black people really have the darkest and obviously black color of skin. DO you think that the terms have been around for centuries and are lies? Are you blind?

cuz not all Asians are yellow

east asains are paleish some are even 10 times paler then me

south east are dark

and few in between are yellowish goldish

because, native american persons are brown, not red. red is the color of devils or white people with pink skin looks similar to red. and asians from southeast asia are also brown, such as filipinos and thais, and burmese....

India and pakistan, and iran are also asian. alot of them are brown, not yellow.

for whites and blacks, most whites have light skin, and most blacks have black skin, but other races vary more in skin complexion

Go ahead like i give a **** cause I';am part Asian. damn so many dumbasses , African aren't actually black but people still call them black, it just stupid labels and white aren't actually whites

hmm that's actually a pretty interesting question

@Mysel...you can't say blacks are the darkest in a general sense like that. my Indian friends make me fun of me all the time for having lighter skin than them. and no i'm not mixed.

I don't know. I don't even know why we call black people black, i have never met a African American who was black, or a caucasian who was literally white.