When did eradicating "Whiteness" first began?

submitted by radicalcentristNational Centrism from self.debatealtright

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[removed]

    [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    Whiteness will always refer to those of Native European stock.

    Just like how "Blackness" always means someone who came from Africa, or looks like one.

    [–]Fonched 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    Correct, although I have some regional questions. The "White means European" definition is affected by how Kazakhstan reaches into Europe, how Russia reaches into Asia (Siberia) and by the Ottoman Empire's expansion into continental Europe as well.

    Even without race science factored in, there is still the whole "x wasn't considered white" component key to whiteness studies which I am currently having questions about right now.

    [–]AidsVictim69 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Correct, although I have some regional questions. The "White means European" definition is affected by how Kazakhstan reaches into Europe, how Russia reaches into Asia (Siberia) and by the Ottoman Empire's expansion into continental Europe as well.

    These sorts of questions are not relevant to most Europeans. There's always ambiguity around border regions which are resolved (or not) by the peoples living there. We can say with certainty that the modern or semi modern definition of "white" includes almost everyone living in continental Europe.

    Even without race science factored in, there is still the whole "x wasn't considered white" component key to whiteness studies which I am currently having questions about right now.

    This is mostly overblown modern liberals as a sort of gotchya. "White" is a modern concept developed in contrast (in some cases literally) to other races. European racism against other European "races"/ethnicity doesn't really matter much for the modern definition - most cases of xyz ethnicity not being "white" is really whatever race (in the US case Anglos) seeing other euro ethnicities as "lesser than" rather than "not white" per se. The most notorious example of Irish (and later Italians) in America not being considered "white" was not in a modern racial sense we use nor was it in any way consistent - the mostly English (Anglo-Saxon) derived Southern plantar classes specifically funneled the Irish into the South to help keep it "white" in the antebellum period.

    It's very clear from modern genetics that continental Europeans are a very closely related people (in contrast to say African "blacks" which are really a multitude of diverging races with similar phenotypes).

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

    Yes, I can see. Plus the rest of Russia doesn't really matter into that definition, matter of fact. I realize that was just twisting stuff.

    What I meant to say was, I have found some more evidence that some believe makes the these groups not considered White: Southern Italians and Eastern Europeans were subject to Jim Crow laws, Ellis Island turned into a deportation center upon the 1920s immigration acts on top of these groups often having their votes disqualified in elections and recent Irish immigrants being considered as lower than blacks in rhetoric in the late 1800s. These are just a few more questions I have.

    [–]milkmender11 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Geography is not genetics, though. The various white races are frequently as different from one another as they are from non-white races. Sarmatians, Laplanders, Fins, Phrygians, Slavs, Teutons, Anglo-Saxons... William Lawrence categorized the many typologies quite thoroughly. Thomas Huxley correctly divided the white races into 'dark' and 'light' varieties. Remember--as you get further from Africa, genetic diversity reduces. Only the East Asians can claim a relatively small number of typologies.

    We must prioritize science above our desire for racial unity. As much as it may pain us to admit, there is no cohesive white race. It is important for us to acknowledge that whiteness is a gradient, a series of typologies with variable purity.

    [–]AidsVictim69 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    The various white races are frequently as different from one another as they are from non-white races.

    Not really, at least for Europeans. Everyone in Europe proper is relatively closely related genetically and to a lesser extent culturally. A Swede and Italian are more closely related than an Italian and Algerian.

    Sarmatians, Laplanders, Fins, Phrygians, Slavs, Teutons, Anglo-Saxons... William Lawrence categorized the many typologies quite thoroughly. Thomas Huxley correctly divided the white races into 'dark' and 'light' varieties. Remember--as you get further from Africa, genetic diversity reduces. Only the East Asians can claim a relatively small number of typologies.

    Europe is a very geographically small area (relative to the rest of Eurasia/Africa) there isn't really enough room for some massive "racial" diversity there and that's reflected in genetic maps where all Europeans are are tightly bound with each other. Once you start talking about "white" races in Central Eurasia/Anatolia/ME things become more complicated but generally these over specialized categorization systems don't make sense in modern genetic landscapes. Slavs, Germans, Italians etc are not radically different from each other, especially compared to their closest relatives in North Africa/ME