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 →

[–]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!