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 →

[–]milkmender11 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

The definition of Whiteness has always been highly variable. If we try to rewrite history like this, we will make ourselves look quite foolish. History is fickle. Science is consistent. Our definition of Whiteness must be scientifically defensible, without reference to geography or history. We already tried to defend a notion of cohesive Whiteness by using geography and history--look where that has gotten us.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

The definition of Whiteness has always been highly variable.

Based on what?

Race can be summed up like lights on a traffic signal. It doesn't matter if there are in-betweens or overlaps. As long as you can tell the major colors like Red, Yellow & Green apart, they're considered separate.

We already tried to defend a notion of cohesive Whiteness by using geography and history--look where that has gotten us.

Except it's still historically valid.

When Europeans touched down or settled the Americas, White was used to tells others they were clearly not Indians or Africans. The first U.S law ever was about immigration, and it even recognizes that distinction.

"free White person(s) ... of good character"

[–]Foidblaster9000 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

As long as you can tell the major colors like Red, Yellow & Green apart, they're considered separate.

There are Europeans with darker complexions than some mixed black people.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

There are Europeans with darker complexions than some mixed black people.

And skin color rarely matters because skull shapes can tell them apart. Perfect example are these two former Presidents.

https://files.catbox.moe/eh197c.jpg

Obama is mixed race and Trump has literal orange skin for his face. Yet which President was always called "Black" or representing Black interests, and which one was called the "evil White supremacist"?

The answer is more than obvious. You can take a White guy and dip him in chocolate, everyone will still know that he's biologically European.

And the opposite is also true. Black guys, even with all the surgery and cosmetics to make themselves look White, are still clearly African in origin.

https://files.catbox.moe/4a0mco.jpg

Sammy Sosa bleached his skin many times and despite being lighter, his facial features are the dead give away he was at one point born Black.

https://files.catbox.moe/o3afvu.jpg

Another grandiose example. Michael Jackson, even with his skin disease, is still clearly an African person on the inside. You can't just delete genes like it's a line of code from a video game. They stick around forever.

[–]milkmender11 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This holds true even within the White races as well. A Nord is plainly discernable from a Polack, as is a Teuton clearly distinct from a Sarmatian.

The reality is that we are trying to play both sides, and it is a doomed project. We pretend that there is no such thing as White purity because, truth be told, we are not doing very well politically. People hate us. We don't want to alienate Spanish whites, or Eastern European whites, Italian whites, etc., because we want all the support we can muster. But guys. The cat has been out of the bag for decades. The Nordic and Teutonic types are the throne of Whiteness. These are the forms with the purest genetic lineages, the races who maintain the distinctive features that make up the quinessential "European" phenotype. Anything else is a miscengenated form. Their allegience is useful, for a time, but it has always been the plan to serve the ends of the pure European, not the diluted one.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's futile to say that the differences between other Europeans is at the same range or gulf as comparing them to other continental races.

If you took a French child and dropped him in Poland, he is much more likely to assimilate and look no different to the rest of Natives, as opposed to dropping a Japanese or Bantu African infant there.

This doesn't mean I'm saying I want France & Poland to merge, or for both countries to lose their own unique cultures. Quite the opposite. It would be obviously better for every Native people to stay in their country of origin. But like the traffic signal analogy, Whites are like the different shades of Red at the beginning, but Asians, Blacks and Indians are like the Green color. It's visually impossible to confuse those colors, or there would be a lot of car accidents...

[–]milkmender11 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You didn't address the substance of my post, though. Purity is real. When we talk about the European type, we are referring to specific traits that, in fact, only a minority of Europeans even have. We are referring to the most pure forms, the Nord and the Teuton. Everything else deviates from that ideal. Are we to tolerate dark-white Moorish influence from Southern Italy or Spain in our vision of a future ethnostate? What about the still-serviceable but ultimately miscegenated Anglo-Saxon? This debate had already surfaced in the early 20th century. We can't pretend this isn't of major importance, not even to court a bit more support for our causes.

[–]milkmender11 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Based on what?

Exactly. That's MY point. What is Whiteness based on? The criteria have changed many times over the centuries. Anyone who has read the early racialist scholars knows this. The debates they had were rigorous. If you are arguing that the definition of Whiteness has not been variable over the years, then you are wrong before you even get a foot out the door. You are positing a nonexistent cohesion.

It doesn't matter if there are in-betweens or overlaps.

Nobody here made the gradient argument, but I understand that you are responding to that argument because you are used to it coming up. I'm not some random leftist with tired talking points, though.

Except it's still historically valid.

As I said, there is nothing that even begins to resemble even the most remote semblence of cohesion in the historical conversations about race. The debates were quite spirited. History itself is valid, but isolated historical narratives that we want to be correct for our own emotional reasons are not necessarily so.

You go on to start using legal rather than historical OR geographic. You are going to lose this debate every time, man, but it IS winnable. Enough with this social science gobeldeygook. When we talk about race, we talk about GENETICS.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Exactly. That's MY point. What is Whiteness based on? The criteria have changed many times over the centuries. Anyone who has read the early racialist scholars knows this. The debates they had were rigorous. If you are arguing that the definition of Whiteness has not been variable over the years, then you are wrong before you even get a foot out the door. You are positing a nonexistent cohesion.

Whiteness is obviously based on group identity and characteristics that all trace back to a certain continent.

I just explained to another user that it's even possible to remove the physical part entirely, and focus on the DNA encoded aspects of race. Trump for whatever reason has Orange skin, yet he was never called "Orange supremacist" outside of lame satire. He was still described and said to represent interests of the White race. Obama, who is technically 50% half white from his parents race mixing, still chose to only identify and fight for Black interests only. And the media described him as that much (i.e first Black U.S President when he's actually the first Mullato one). Race is not imaginary. Even liberals know what this means or else they wouldn't spend their entire ticking lives saying why do Asianess and Blackness matter, but "Whiteness" is suppose to be subjective?

As I said, there is nothing that even begins to resemble even the most remote semblence of cohesion in the historical conversations about race.

Jared Taylor has a video on the history of race that I can find for you, but he did a damn good job at showing how consistent the definition was all throughout the years. For example, Europeans arrived in Japan and the Japanese immediately knew they looked different. This was reflected heavily in their art, where Japanese and European were drawn with easy to tell different racial features. That doesn't happen by accident. Meanwhile, the only Black guy who did reach Japan at the same time (Yasuke) was also seen as different. That's 3 different races together, yet humans back then still could tell each other part with simple definitions.

When we talk about race, we talk about GENETICS.

Well yeah, no shit, and guess where do physical and social characteristics come from? Why for example, would the U.S pass laws like Jim Crow or use the One drop rule if they didn't believe that Whiteness and Blacks were suppose to mix? I'll await your answer...

[–]milkmender11 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Whiteness is obviously based on

No, it isn't obvious. "It is obvious" is not an argument. This is social science prevarication. You sound like a UCLA sociologist! Going on about laws and human attitudes--we have the science to assess this empirically. So let's.

Jared Taylor has a video on the history of race that I can find for you, but he did a damn good job at showing how consistent the definition was all throughout the years.

Jared Taylor did a terrible job in that video, which you would not know if you didn't take the time to verify the information for yourself. Don't watch youtube videos to get your information. Read "The Rise and Fall of the Caucasian Race." THAT is the gold standard for comprehensive history of Whiteness. It's a 300+ page book, not a shambolic youtube video put together by a closetted Asian Supremacist like Taylor.

where do physical and social characteristics come from? Why for example, would the U.S pass laws like Jim Crow or use the One drop rule if they didn't believe that Whiteness and Blacks were suppose to mix?

I see this far too often on this sub. A facetious deference to science coupled with a curious refusal to actually speak scientifically. It comes from being uninformed about genetics at a sufficiently high level to speak compendiously about race, and a fear that a leftist who knows more might show up and drop unfamiliar terminology. So we pretend to respect science while engaging in precisely the same silly sociological/anthropological humanities equivocation that leftists do.

Genetics is the ONLY way we can discuss race empirically. Everything else--legal, geographic, social, historical--is just a crude reference back to science. We HAVE the tools to discuss this correctly. Any focus other than genetics is simply inferior.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

not a shambolic youtube video put together by a closetted Asian Supremacist like Taylor.

WTF did I just read?

Between this, and all the antivax posts, this sub is going down the drain.

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

I accept your forfeiture. Good debate!