Slavs aren't white.

submitted by MisterQ from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

"white" actually means Anglo-saxon American, in the strictest historical definition.

No it didn't. If you're talking about the American context alone -- it definitely never meant that in Australia -- it meant Europeans. The first immigration bill Congress ever passed limited migration to 'Free Whites of good character' and at the time there Europeans coming in from Britain and NW Europe so obviously White didn't just mean Anglo-Saxon or no one else but Anglo-Saxons would have been able to migrate.

[–]proc0 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Well then that's Australian white. The origin of the American term comes from when the majority of people where of Anglo-saxon descent. The story told now is that it kept expanding to include Europeans, but I think that is a twisted version of history.

The term was always used to mean the original Americans that arrived from England. Then society in America started taking steps towards being "color blind", so it did't matter and the term was not used as much, but now thanks to hateful people that term has been revived but not in its original form, and they lie about what happened. As an example, many Latin Americans would be considered white now, but definitely not a few decades ago. The reason is because now it is based on a combination of skin tone and politics.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No it isn't. Did you even read my comment I wasn't talking about 'Australian white'.

As an example, many Latin Americans would be considered white now, but definitely not a few decades ago. The reason is because now it is based on a combination of skin tone and politics.

I don't even know what the hell you're talking about. There are many Latin Americans including many Cubans in America who are genuinely racially White -- I'm talking about biology here not social categorization -- but no one just becomes White because of their politics.

Again this is the type of argument I usually here exclusively from leftists weirdos who think it's a gotcha and a refutal of the reality of race to note the slightly changing definitions over time. It's stupid and silly.

[–]proc0 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I am telling you what the reality of the status quo is, not my opinion on the matter.

but no one just becomes White because of their politics.

I agree.

Again this is the type of argument I usually here exclusively from leftists weirdos

Yes, I am basically explaining what they are saying. Just because I'm explaining something doesn't make it my argument, and I'm only doing so to make the point that they started making this change in definitions.

There are many Latin Americans including many Cubans in America who are genuinely racially White

I don't know about now, but a decade ago, I visited South America, and I'm also familiar with the culture, people don't think this way. Again, this might have changed now because of the Internet and lefties trying to change language, but not that long ago this concept didn't exist down there. Even light-skinned people in Latin America still considered themselves as Latinos or Latin American. The proof of this is that actual white people visiting Latin America are called "gringos". Nobody calls themselves "blanco", and if they do now, that's because of wokeness being exported around the world, but I doubt they do.