Questions on Whiteness, White Identity and White Culture

submitted by Fonched from self.debatealtright

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Fonched[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

I agree with this as well. I would want to see a debate or a book review of one of the popular whiteness studies titles (from Roediger, Jacobson, Painter etc.).

[–]Jackalope 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

I am personally not a white nationalist, and many of the points you brought up are certainly issues that keep from embracing an ideology like this. I was hoping to read some convincing new takes that would at least challenge my own views, but have to say I am a little disappointed by the responses to the issues surrounding defining 'whiteness'. The contamination principle, or 'one drop of blood' issue you brought up I think was in no way answered satisfactorily.

What is the view here on Elizabeth Warren aka 'Pocahontas'?

Does her tiny percentage of Native American make her ethnic claims laughable? (If so what is the cut-off point, I have seen specific words like 'Octaroon' used here, so I would infer 1/8 is considered substantial non-whiteness)

Or is she brown by the contamination principle? Genetic testing seems to show that at least in the US, people have a lot less pure of bloodlines than they might imagine. In this case I also question some of the arguments about 'traceable European ancestry' and others I have seen in this thread that seem like they would probably pertain to people who are the vast majority 'white European' by DNA.

Anyways, I think this question of how to define 'white' is an academically interesting question, and I appreciate your attempt to solicit well thought out answers to to it.

[–]Fonched[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

The one-drop rule thing I was referring to was rather different, in the sense of people who skew more towards half of one race rather than having trace amounts of both such as Warren (such cases are never really mentioned in whiteness studies). There is a famous quote that goes, "a white woman can have a black child, but a black woman cannot have a White child." It's why Barack Obama for instance, despite being half-black and half-white, is always considered black over white and where claims of the entire whiteness system being based on purity and being oppressive.

Otherwise I feel that is beyond the scope of today's discussion as result. But there is more to be brought up, with Anglos vs. other ethnic groups in America and the entire concept of whiteness.

[–]Jackalope 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

The one-drop rule thing I was referring to was rather different,

Otherwise I feel that is beyond the scope of today's discussion as result

Apologies, wasn't intending to derail the discussion. I personally do not understand the boundaries of race in a lot of ways, I'll leave it at that.

But there is more to be brought up, with Anglos vs. other ethnic groups in America and the entire concept of whiteness.

I look forward to your future posts on the concept of whiteness. It has become a taboo topic unfortunately, and I am interested to hear some perspectives.

[–]Fonched[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

This thread is more about interpreting historical definitions of whiteness laid by societies. Personal definitions of whiteness are something different.

If you would like, I could bring more concepts to the table in the replies below.

[–]Jackalope 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

This thread is more about interpreting historical definitions of whiteness laid by societies. Personal definitions of whiteness are something different.

I agree personal definitions are rather irrelevant, I think my interest is in how society defines whiteness, today (or should define it for that matter). The historical definitions I think are certainly relevant, but multiculturalism and globalism have perhaps made these definitions a bit murkier than when we were dealing with unadulterated unmixed gene pools.

If you would like, I could bring more concepts to the table in the replies below.

Yes, I am interested to hear your thoughts and the thoughts of others as well.

[–]Fonched[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

I concern myself with past definitions of whiteness because of how much it is used within the realm of whiteness studies, and therefore I am looking for answers to those questions. It seems to relate to why people dislike whiteness in the present day, and supposed fluidity with certain groups becoming more middle-class.

So I'll start with this for us to go over. https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/2184754/chinese-were-white-until-white-men-called-them-yellow

[–]Jackalope 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Interesting that Japanese did not consider themselves the same race as the Chinese, though not surprising. I rather disagree with the Japanese, while their skin tone and features are somewhat different, they share genetic traits (epicanthal eye fold) AND linguistic origins (Shared character system, similar to latin vs english). I don't think that the continent thing is ALL wrong.

However as u/Tuisto pointed out to me in a response, and I think very correctly - genetics clearly can't be all of race. If we perform the thought experiment of a gene therapy to make a Black person from the ghetto genetically white, it is fairly absurd to say they are now white on many levels. Clearly the culture factor is relevant as well.

This seems like the classic Nature vs Nurture argument framed as Genetics vs Culture where both factors are clearly relevant despite certain preferences people have for one over the other. You can't become white through gene therapy. You also cannot become white by being adopted by whites at birth (the 100% cultural case). To be 'White' would seem to have BOTH genetic and cultural implications of some sort as well.

Edit: I didn't state this but my arguments should make it obvious that I do not consider Chinese or Japanese to be White. Divergent genetics (Skin melanation epicanthal folds) + Completely different culture and language origins. I'm saying they need to meet both conditions, and they meet neither.

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

Well there is a paywall, so I am not getting far with that article. But your explanation does make sense.

The next topic I would like to speak of is brought up in one of my articles. It says that if Judaism is considered a religion and a race, then it opens up the possibility of Islam, Catholicism etc. also being a race. If so, why is the former defined as one more often culturally?

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

It says that if Judaism is considered a religion and a race, then it opens up the possibility of Islam, Catholicism etc. also being a race. If so, why is the former defined as one more often culturally?

I don't think Catholicism is ever in danger of being defined this way, and I have an explanation on the why.

Jewish as an ethnic group, and as a religion, are both valid concepts, but are different things - it is just an unfortunate coincidence that we use one word interchangeably like this. The ethnic Jews just managed to maintain a very homogenous religious makeup, and unlike Catholics, they don't really have missionaries trying to convert other ethnic groups to their religion. You can also have secular Jews, who are genetically jewish, and even culturally jewish, but do not follow/practice/believe in the religion.

You have ethnic Jews, and religious Jews, and there should probably be different words for these groups despite any significant overlap. However, there are few enough non-ethnic-Jews practicing this religion that this distinction isn't that relevant in many cases, and people just ignore the issue of secular Judaism by treating culture and religion as the same thing. Criticisms of Jews often conflate these things, and I think any serious discussion on this topic needs to be clear whether it is criticizing a genealogy, a religion, or a culture.

[–][deleted]  (7 children)

[deleted]

    [–]Fonched[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    Just would like to note this wording might have been a little inaccurate - it refers to people who have one White parent, which are never considered part of the White group unlike any other race they may be.

    [–][deleted]  (5 children)

    [deleted]

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

      Yes. Still, what do you think of that classification? Is it always true, or has spread to biracial people of two non-White races? Does it make whiteness inherently oppressive?

      [–][deleted]  (3 children)

      [deleted]

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

        So I see, although the half-Lebanese is definitely closer to White regardless of the mixture. I guess this is a part where appearance is key to racial identification. I had, however also heard of a study where those who are half-White identified with the other race over White most of the time.

        My thread is more about how whiteness was historically interpreted and whether it all gives credence to White identity today. Even if I do veer onto asking who is classified as White as a whole, I am mostly speaking of the "gray areas" (Kazakhstan, Ottoman Empire being European descent, etc.) in the puzzle.

        [–][deleted]  (1 child)

        [deleted]

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

          Interestingly today I saw a story about a CEO that was stated as Black and biracial, but was very White in appearance.

          Many from both sides of the debate agree that these groups were initially considered White as they were able to immigrate under the 1790 acts and were eligible for citizenship, but some also say that these non-Anglo groups were "probationary Whites" as they were treated as an other. However it is where many get the idea that whiteness is not set in stone, flexible and can open to several other groups becoming White.