Isn't white privilege based solely on what you look like?

[Chocolate_Hound]

So I've been hearing a lot of turmoil about "white-passing" individuals on being "invisible POC" and whatnot.

But isn't white privilege based solely on what you look like? I mean, haven't people been literally lynched and whatnot for their skin color? I can't imagine a "white-passing" person who's waltzed through life and achieved social success having the right to call themself a POC. If they've been treated better for their fair skin, to the hindrance of the others, then isn't that the definition of white privilege?

If these white-passing people walk abroad, virtually everyone will assume they're white. People will treat them better due to their fair skin. It doesn't matter where they're from. The vast majority of people aren't gonna scan over your genetics and interrogate your racial origin. To most of the world, you will be seen as white. I have known "white-passing" people who've been harassed in POC enclaves for their fair skin. People really overestimate the extent to which people give a shit where you're from.

I mean if you are asked to describe a white-passing person to an investigations department, would you not describe them as a white Caucasian? Does actual origin matter in these scenarios?

The more I think about it, the more that "white-passing" just seems like an excuse for racists to exclude clearly white individuals for socio-political reasons. There are a crap ton of white people living outside of Europe, supremacists just don't want to admit this, because it goes against their belief in a mythical white race. Social "perception" is no match against demographic fact. Own up to it.

If you have fair skin and Caucasoid features, you're WHITE, and you benefit from white privilege. PHENOTYPE reigns supreme in America. I can't help but chuckle when these jackasses act like their race is an opinion and try to lump themselves in with actual POC. It feels like cheating.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

I can say with confidence that there is no White privilege. There is, however, victim privilege. Decades of associating Whiteness with evil and non-Whiteness with being moral and cool have led to many people not wanting to be White.

This is why so many White people have a fetish for claiming distant Native American ancestry. I remember on 23andme there were people upset their results didn't reveal native American ancestry. Anything that makes them less White (i.e. a victim) is a plus.

Even the whole George Floyd death reveals White privilege doesn't exist. There have been a number of incidents where police negligence and abuse led to the murder of White men and no one cared but when a drug addict who robbed a pregnant woman years ago with a gun dies it's all anyone can talk about when it clearly wasn't racially motivated. Police abuse only matters when you're a minority.

I'll also point out that 'attractiveness privilege' exists. Regardless of your race if you're attractive people will generally treat you better and that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

[Mortimer]

If you assume white privilege is real, then it is a degree, they are privileged compared to someone who cannot pass as white, but disadvantaged compared to someone whos origins are white as well. Because you are judged by your origins as well not only your looks, usually a 5 minute talk is enough to reveal who you are even if on first sight or just by look you dont look like that.

[Turul Karom]

So I've been hearing a lot of turmoil about "white-passing" individuals on being "invisible POC" and whatnot.

But isn't white privilege based solely on what you look like? I mean, haven't people been literally lynched and whatnot for their skin color? I can't imagine a "white-passing" person who's waltzed through life and achieved social success having the right to call themself a POC. If they've been treated better for their fair skin, to the hindrance of the others, then isn't that the definition of white privilege?

If these white-passing people walk abroad, virtually everyone will assume they're white. People will treat them better due to their fair skin. It doesn't matter where they're from. The vast majority of people aren't gonna scan over your genetics and interrogate your racial origin. To most of the world, you will be seen as white. I have known "white-passing" people who've been harassed in POC enclaves for their fair skin. People really overestimate the extent to which people give a shit where you're from.

I mean if you are asked to describe a white-passing person to an investigations department, would you not describe them as a white Caucasian? Does actual origin matter in these scenarios?

The more I think about it, the more that "white-passing" just seems like an excuse for racists to exclude clearly white individuals for socio-political reasons. There are a crap ton of white people living outside of Europe, supremacists just don't want to admit this, because it goes against their belief in a mythical white race. Social "perception" is no match against demographic fact. Own up to it.

If you have fair skin and Caucasoid features, you're WHITE, and you benefit from white privilege. PHENOTYPE reigns supreme in America. I can't help but chuckle when these jackasses act like their race is an opinion and try to lump themselves in with actual POC. It feels like cheating.

The United States vigilante mobs lynched Italians and Irish, too. You are wrong about the idea of what it even means to be "white" in this context. Any in-group eventually fights itself anyway without sustained outside pressure to ensure cohesion. It's part of the nature of humanity.

People who are so-called white passing are people who are indeed functionally white. This is something you are right about. However, the problems come when, in an all-white environment, if the white-passing kind have historical grudges against other whites. The classic example is Turks. You will be hard pressed for someone to call a Turk white if there's incentive to other them (despite the fact that some ethnic Turks look whiter than some Europeans). This is because for most of Western lore, Turks played the role of the antagonist (Crusades, Ottomans, etc.) Only recently post-WW1 and reform have they become "whiter" in the eyes of the world.

POC will never accept them as part of the Coalition of Color because they look too white. Hence, they exist in a limbo until society shifts for one reason or another. If anything, they would be easier accepted into white society than other society. The conflict comes where other whites rally around their shared national causes, but then the "other white" speaks up about theirs and it becomes historically awkward for them. This is present in many cases. If you want to see how whiteness of Turks fluctuated, look at the posters used during the Russo-Turkish wars (where Turks are shown almost as dark as Indians) vs how Turks are presented as allies and as full members of the Central Powers during WW1. Here are some Central Powers examples:

https://i.ibb.co/sqtMXQh/ww1-central-powers-1.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)
https://i.ibb.co/C74nH1L/ww1-turkish-soldier.jpg (https://ibb.co/4TCjVmk)
https://i.ibb.co/JB2gcvx/Balkanzug-karte-01.jpg (https://ibb.co/smQzgK5)

[Mortimer]

People who are so-called white passing are people who are indeed functionally white. This is something you are right about. However, the problems come when, in an all-white environment, if the white-passing kind have historical grudges against other whites. The classic example is Turks. You will be hard pressed for someone to call a Turk white if there's incentive to other them (despite the fact that some ethnic Turks look whiter than some Europeans). This is because for most of Western lore, Turks played the role of the antagonist (Crusades, Ottomans, etc.) Only recently post-WW1 and reform have they become "whiter" in the eyes of the world.

POC will never accept them as part of the Coalition of Color because they look too white. Hence, they exist in a limbo until society shifts for one reason or another.

Reminds me of Jews as well. But Im not even sure there is a coalition of colour, and who is in that coalition? I think Blacks do not like Asians for example, Mexicans do not like Blacks etc. Maybe it is a coalition lead by white liberals, not by non-whites.

[Turul Karom]

Reminds me of Jews as well. But Im not even sure there is a coalition of colour, and who is in that coalition? I think Blacks do not like Asians for example, Mexicans do not like Blacks etc. Maybe it is a coalition lead by white liberals, not by non-whites.

Coalition of Color is wishful thinking of internationalists/intersectionalists where they believe that by minimizing the conflicts that you mentioned and focusing on the majority population as the oppressor (typically whites), that they can eventually overcome them as a whole.

They're the same people who try to highlight any East Asian disobedience/failures/criminality in western nations in attempts to disprove model minority myths so that they feel more obliged to be a part of the defunct CoC. For Middle Easterners/Meds that are phenotypically dark enough to fit the bill with a Muslim-sounding name, they will pander to their religion to get them to join up. You are correct that this CoC concept is usually championed by white leftists.

[E1b1b]

Only a certain type of white people experience privilege and that’s rich white people. I don’t see how a white dude working next to a Mexican construction worker doing the same job and getting the same pay has any privilege. So ultimately there is only CLASS privilege

[bvnny]

Being white is like being fully-privileged, while being white-passing is just partially

Since most white-passing ppl are still seen as non-white for some groups most of the times, meaning that they still may feel "opressed" in a way (aside from the fact that some white-passing ppl end up facing identity crisis, as a result of being purely white-passing instead of white).

[Borealis]

Reality is that EVERYTHING is based on what you look like especially in the new world. So yes white passing folk can experience white privilege but also reverse racism.

[Mortimer]

Reality is that EVERYTHING is based on what you look like especially in the new world. So yes white passing folk can experience white privilege but also reverse racism.

They can experience racism too, not only reverse racism. But I agree they experience probably all of that.

[Mortimer]

Being white is like being fully-privileged, while being white-passing is just partially

Since most white-passing ppl are still seen as non-white for some groups most of the times, meaning that they still may feel "opressed" in a way (aside from the fact that some white-passing ppl end up facing identity crisis, as a result of being purely white-passing instead of white).

This, you can also be privileged if you are westernised, and fully non-white. You can be more privileged then someone culturally fully eastern. I always thought of mullatos in austria as much more white privileged then myself.

[Borealis]

They can experience racism too, not only reverse racism. But I agree they experience probably all of that.

Difference is that reverse racism tends to be more pointed, and hence easier to detect and defend against whereas whites privilege is subtle. White privilege is typically not noticeable as a lot of it is people acting through subconscious or hidden attitudes. So if a white passing person is not given a ticket after being stopped by a cop he/she will not chalk it up to white privilege because it’s never spelled out. Meanwhile reverse racism comes often in the form of people being blatantly hostile and saying anti white things to you, to which the white passing individual can just reply “I am not white” and end it there.

[Mortimer]

Difference is that reverse racism tends to be more pointed, and hence easier to detect and defend against whereas whites privilege is subtle. White privilege is typically not noticeable as a lot of it is people acting through subconscious or hidden attitudes. So if a white passing person is not given a ticket after being stopped by a cop he/she will not chalk it up to white privilege because it’s never spelled out. Meanwhile reverse racism comes often in the form of people being blatantly hostile and saying anti white things to you, to which the white passing individual can just reply “I am not white” and end it there.

Ok but a white passing person might face direct racism from whites. I mean they probably did at some point. And they probably experienced reverse racism, they probably experience all of it.

[Borealis]

Ok but a white passing person might face direct racism from whites. I mean they probably did at some point. And they probably experienced reverse racism, they probably experience all of it.

Yep the whole 9 yards. Also worth noting that many whites infantilize minorities and hold them to lower standards. So a white passing person may not get that benefit(or drawback, depending on how you see it).

[Blondie]

I love my white privilege. When i get up in the morning, colored slaves bring caviar to me. When i have been to India, the maharaja knelt before me and he said im subhuman compared to you. Complete TV crews followed me everywhere and the peoples threw roses wherever i go. Or if im going to the supermarket, the colored peoples are gonna lay down on the street, just because they dont want to get my shoes dirty. And that happens every day, so white privilege is cool.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/FrequentWearyIsabellineshrike-size_restricted.gif

[Petalpusher]

"Your look is your credentials"

So probably yes.

[Chocolate_Hound]

If you assume white privilege is real, then it is a degree, they are privileged compared to someone who cannot pass as white, but disadvantaged compared to someone whos origins are white as well. Because you are judged by your origins as well not only your looks, usually a 5 minute talk is enough to reveal who you are even if on first sight or just by look you dont look like that.

Right, but these prejudices aren't based on race, they're based on background. The two aren't intertwined. A Soviet Russian during the Cold War would have been treated much differently once his background is found out, despite him looking like a white American. This isn't racial discrimination.

My point is that I've seen white-passing people being treated better IN SPITE of their background due to their white appearance. I'm probably gonna treat a very fair-skinned dude much better regardless of where he's from. People are more comfortable with people who look like them.

And white privilege to me isn't about power or money. It's the sole idea that people are treated better for looking/being white. There's no extrapolation on this. It's just about your physical phenotype. Which is why I say white-passing can't be a thing, because the notion of privilege is based only on what you look like, nothing else.

[Mortimer]

Right, but these prejudices aren't based on race, they're based on background. The two aren't intertwined. A Soviet Russian during the Cold War would have been treated much differently once his background is found out, despite him looking like a white American. This isn't racial discrimination.

My point is that I've seen white-passing people being treated better IN SPITE of their background due to their white appearance. I'm probably gonna treat a very fair-skinned dude much better regardless of where he's from. People are more comfortable with people who look like them.

And white privilege to me isn't about power or money. It's the sole idea that people are treated better for looking/being white. There's no extrapolation on this. It's just about your physical phenotype. Which is why I say white-passing can't be a thing, because the notion of privilege is based only on what you look like, nothing else.

Depends on how you define race, and background, and how the two are strictly seperate in your opinion and why would it be worse if it is based on race but good if it is based on background? Background can be by birth, like caste in india, just like race. Origin is also by birth, and genetical.

Edit: I dont know what your ultimate point is, if you mean white passing mixed people or turks and arabs who are white passing but not mixed? The latter are caucasian.

[Borealis]

Right, but these prejudices aren't based on race, they're based on background. The two aren't intertwined. A Soviet Russian during the Cold War would have been treated much differently once his background is found out, despite him looking like a white American. This isn't racial discrimination.

My point is that I've seen white-passing people being treated better IN SPITE of their background due to their white appearance. I'm probably gonna treat a very fair-skinned dude much better regardless of where he's from. People are more comfortable with people who look like them.

And white privilege to me isn't about power or money. It's the sole idea that people are treated better for looking/being white. There's no extrapolation on this. It's just about your physical phenotype. Which is why I say white-passing can't be a thing, because the notion of privilege is based only on what you look like, nothing else.

White passing is definitely a meaningful and legitimate term. Whether someone benefits or not from people thinking they are white, that does not mean they *are* white. Your race does not change based on what idiots perceive it to be. Your subjective experience might.

[Mortimer]

White passing is definitely a meaningful and legitimate term. Whether someone benefits or not from people thinking they are white, that does not mean they *are* white. Your race does not change based on what idiots perceive it to be. Your subjective experience might.

Yes also sometimes two different people might perceive it differently.

[Incal]

"White privilege" is another excuse invented by the psychopaths on power to destroy any remaining viable society and spread misery everywhere.

[Mortimer]

"White privilege" is another excuse invented by the psychopaths on power to destroy any remaining viable society and spread misery everywhere.

He also seems to define white privilege not based on genetic race but only look, that is kinda like lookism, that if you look good you are privileged. Im not sure if someone white is always treated better just because he is fair, sometimes very fair people like gingers get discriminated in meditteranean countries. In Serbia blonde people are called svabos, which is a funny name for german.

[Incal]

He also seems to define white privilege not based on genetic race but only look, that is kinda like lookism, that if you look good you are privileged. Im not sure if someone white is always treated better just because he is fair, sometimes very fair people like gingers get discriminated in meditteranean countries. In Serbia blonde people are called svabos, which is a funny name for german.

To start with, there's only "white privilege" in countries where there are immigrants. Funny no?

[Borealis]

To start with, there's only "white privilege" in countries where there are immigrants. Funny no?

Of course. Why would white privilege exist in a country where either everyone or no one is white? think about that logically. For someone to act on a difference, there needs to *be* a difference.

Anyone with an IQ north of 80 could explain this to you without resorting to conspiratardism.

[Mortimer]

To start with, there's only "white privilege" in countries where there are immigrants. Funny no?

Depends on how you define white privilege. I would imagine that in China a white person has white privilege compared to a black person as well. Even in Nigeria he would be, that is the legacy of colonialism. In Nigeria they might smile and call him sahib, also they are usually richer, then the rest, not always but usually. Thats why a white person is usually a expat not a immigrant. Im saying this neutral, not that I hate whites or want to shame them or guilt them. Like saying check your white privilege, in some countries like the USA or elsewhere there are also many homeless whites etc.

[Incal]

Of course. Why would white privilege exist in a country where either everyone or no one is white? think about that logically. For someone to act on a difference, there needs to *be* a difference.

Anyone with an IQ north of 80 could explain this to you without resorting to conspiratardism.

OK, and the next question should be... Why does that difference exist?

[StonyArabia]

To start with, there's only "white privilege" in countries where there are immigrants. Funny no?

It also exist in former colonized states especially Latin America and parts of Africa, and Asia. It’s less in areas where colonization was not successful. Latin America is basically a white person paradise they even put them above the locals. No such thing would happen in Iraq for example especially the Western regions. We always put our people first but colonization failed there as we are military people by nature and we don’t submit. The same can be said of some regions in Arabia.

[Incal]

Depends on how you define white privilege. I would imagine that in China a white person has white privilege compared to a black person as well. Even in Nigeria he would be, that is the legacy of colonialism. In Nigeria they might smile and call him sahib, also they are usually richer, then the rest, not always but usually. Thats why a white person is usually a expat not a immigrant. Im saying this neutral, not that I hate whites or want to shame them or guilt them. Like saying check your white privilege, in some countries like the USA or elsewhere there are also many homeless whites etc.

I don't define it as anything because it's not real. It's just rep. "White people" as you call them are the ones who produce the better working societies, as simple as that. What do you think will happen when for example the US runs out of "whites"? All those parasites who cry "white privilege" will move to Canada or any other country that still got some "whites" remaining.

[Blondie]

Depends on how you define white privilege. I would imagine that in China a white person has white privilege compared to a black person as well. Even in Nigeria he would be, that is the legacy of colonialism. In Nigeria they might smile and call him sahib, also they are usually richer, then the rest, not always but usually. Thats why a white person is usually a expat not a immigrant. Im saying this neutral, not that I hate whites or want to shame them or guilt them. Like saying check your white privilege, in some countries like the USA or elsewhere there are also many homeless whites etc.

You are completely wrong, white peoples face tons of racism in Africa or East Asia, there are many insulting word what they used for whites, i have heard from chinese many times that whites smells like dogs, blacks call us crackers, devils, albinos or afrikaners get out from Africa and such things. If white privilege exist in Europe then black privilege exist in Africa or east asian privilege in East Asia, but to be honest what is the problem with that? But really... Maybe im privilegized in Europe, because im native here, this is my home, this continent was built by my ancestors and these new migrants have nothing to do with this. Yes we must strengthening the white priority in Europe because its ours. And im talking about Europe, not USA because thats a different story.

[Incal]

It also exist in former colonized states especially Latin America and parts of Africa, and Asia. It’s less in areas where colonization was not successful. Latin America is basically a white person paradise they even put them above the locals. No such thing would happen in Iraq for example especially the Western regions. We always put our people first but colonization failed there as we are military people by nature and we don’t submit. The same can be said of some regions in Arabia.

You shouldn't talk about places you haven't visited in your life. Here, there are some women who would like to marry a "white guy" to get whiter looking kids that's true but it's their fucking business. Something that you'll never see though, is some good for nothing parasite crying "white privilege" because somebody better prepared than them got the job they wanted. That's unthinkable. That's what "white privilege" really is: an excuse to give a useless parasite without any merits a position they don't deserve.

[StonyArabia]

You are completely wrong, white peoples face tons of racism in Africa or East Asia, there are many insulting word what they used for whites, i have heard from chinese many times that whites smells like dogs, blacks call us crackers, devils, albinos or afrikaners get out from Africa and such things. If white privilege exist in Europe then black privilege exist in Africa or east asian privilege in East Asia, but to be honest what is the problem with that? But really... Maybe im privilegized in Europe, because im native here, this is my home, this continent was built by my ancestors and these new migrants have nothing to do with this. Yes we must strengthening the white priority in Europe because its ours. And im talking about Europe, not USA because thats a different story.

Maybe parts of Africa but East Asians are the biggest white worshippers, especially true in Southeast Asia, Chinese used to have this type of attitude but it has lessened due to china’s rise probably gaining self confidence. India we all know the story.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Maybe parts of Africa but East Asians are the biggest white worshippers, especially true in Southeast Asia, Chinese used to have this type of attitude but it has lessened due to china’s rise probably gaining self confidence. India we all know the story.

Ask White people living in Japan if they're worshipped. Japanese culture is one of the most xenophobic. Ask mix race couples in South Korea and their children how they're viewed.

As for south east Asians, it's pretty fucking simple: they're poor and White people who travel tend to have money. Those women, like women all over the planet, are looking for men who can provide for them and their offspring. Are we going to assume the stereotype of Eastern European women seeking Western men is because of Whiteness as well?

You're one of the dumbest posters on this forum, and that says much.

[Mortimer]

You shouldn't talk about places you haven't visited in your life. Here, there are some women who would like to marry a "white guy" to get whiter looking kids that's true but it's their fucking business. Something that you'll never see though, is some good for nothing parasite crying "white privilege" because somebody better prepared than them got the job they wanted. That's unthinkable. That's what "white privilege" really is: an excuse to give a useless parasite without any merits a position they don't deserve.

If you take your talk as serious, you are one of those who worship whites and place above your own people. You do say it just right now.

[StonyArabia]

Ask White people living in Japan if they're worshipped. Japanese culture is one of the most xenophobic.

As for south east Asians, it's pretty fucking simple: they're poor and White people who travel tend to have money. Those women, like women all over the planet, are looking for men who can provide for them and their offspring. Are we going to assume the stereotype of Eastern European women seeking Western men is because of Whiteness as well?

You're one of the dumbest posters on this forum, and that says much.

Look who is talking. Obviously Eastern European women who are into Western men are not doing for whiteness smart ass. Eastern European especially Ukrainian and Russians can be much whiter than Westerners like Iberians for example. I am talking deeper stuff that your mixed Iberian brain does not get.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Look who is talking. Do you get upset that little Iberia was Arab for 800 years cry cry

No, I don't. You fucking, moron. And what does that have to do with my post, moron?

[Mortimer]

White privilege is not only that you get a job, it has many facettes. For example white privilege is also that you are not guilty if you are white that there is another white masshooter, you are not guilty by association for your race. That is also white privilege. But I dont cry white privilege etc. I just make observations.

[Incal]

If you take your talk as serious, you are one of those who worship whites and place above your own people. You do say it just right now.

You confuse Real Talk with Worship. Also, actions speak louder than words: I live in the country I was born, I didn't move to a white country to scream "white privilege" and get benefits.

[StonyArabia]

No, I don't. You fucking, moron. And what does that have to do with my post, moron?

Your Iberian mixed tiny brain does not get the fact of White privilege exist in the former colonies. Go to Dominican Republic, Mexico and people would bow down to you, put you on pedestal it’s fact. In China, whites also get treated well, maybe in Japan not so much but you dumb ass forgot Japan was never colonized and defeated several European powers including Russia. The Japanese defeated the British and Dutch in Southeast Asia. This why Japan does not show a colonial mentality, yet China does but it has lessened to do its rise. The only dumb ass is you. Is Spain even a first world country rofl

[E1b1b]

Only class privilege exists

[frankhammer]

I have always considered it one people looking after their own first. I continue to practise that even if certain laws say otherwise.

If you feel left out, be better and make sure you tell those like yourself to do the same :shrug:

[Mortimer]

You confuse Real Talk with Worship. Also, actions speak louder than words: I live in the country I was born, I didn't move to a white country to scream "white privilege" and get benefits.

You dont need to move to another country, you might treat whites better in your own country. By your talk it seems that way.

[Incal]

You're one of the dumbest posters on this forum, and that says much.

Well, even his own fellow Canadian Wadaad used to tell me many times he was "special needs".

[StonyArabia]

Only class privilege exists

For the most part that’s true. If you are rich then it does not matter what you are.

[Incal]

You dont need to move to another country, you might treat whites better in your own country. By your talk it seems that way.

Well, most of the times, the whitest the decentest, so yeah. Same with Asians.

[Mortimer]

Well, most of the times, the whitest the decentest, so yeah. Same with Asians.

So me and StonyArabia were right eventhough you denied it.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Your Iberian mixed tiny brain does not get the fact of White privilege exist in the former colonies. Go to Dominican Republic, Mexico and people would bow down to you, put you on pedestal it’s fact. In China, whites also get treated well, maybe in Japan not so much but you dumb ass forgot Japan was never colonized and defeated several European powers including Russia. The Japanese defeated the British and Dutch in Southeast Asia. This why Japan does not show a colonial mentality, yet China does but it has lessened to do its rise. The only dumb ass is you. Is Spain even a first world country rofl

Oh, Whites are treated well? That's a relief. Do you mean to tell me people with money who travel aren't treated like shit? Well, I'm shocked.

I don't even know why you're talking about Latin America. We're talking about Asian nations.

I don't even want to waste my time with you any further. Especially since you didn't even address much of what I said. I didn't say anything about China. I spoke about Japan, South Korea, Southeast Asia. Notice I said nothing about India, or China, fool.

Yeah, Spain is still a 1st World nation. That's why Muslims keep immigrating there. If you're going to mock someone's ethnicity be sure that you don't come from a 3rd world shit hole because it just makes it ironic but then again you're low IQ and you need your handheld.

[Incal]

So me and StonyArabia were right eventhough you denied it.

Not really. I'm consistent. You both are too stubborn (or dumb) to differentiate privilege from merit. Those are 2 different concepts.

[StonyArabia]

Yeah, Spain is still a 1st World nation. That's why Muslims keep immigrating there. If you're going to mock someone's ethnicity be sure that you don't come from a 3rd world shit hole because it just makes it ironic but then again you're low IQ and you need your hand held.

I am not going to even dignify your first response. I am from Canada, Canadian of Mideast background. Canada is far greater than Spain in most ways. Oh we were the masters of Spain for nearly 800 years. I don’t come from a shithole. Canada is one of the best countries in the world. You are the one who does not understand the deep meaning of the conversation. North African Muslims go to Spain because it’s close to them nothing more nothing less, then some go to France or Britain. Btw what’s Spain greatest accomplishment? Bull fighting ROFL

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

I am not going to even dignify your first response. I am from Canada, Canadian of Mideast background. Canada is far greater than Spain in most ways.

Aren't you the same moron who would shit on the Angloshpere? Suddenly you're a Canadian patriot.


Oh we were the masters of Spain for nearly 800 years.

Who is 'we'? The Moors were predominately Berbers and their leadership from the Levant. You're from neither.


I don’t come from a shithole.

Yeah, you do.


Canada is one of the best countries in the world.

Yeah, and Canadians don't want you there.


You are the one who does not understand the deep meaning of the conversation.

Apparently, you don't because you spoke about East Asians and now you're talking about Spain, for some reason.


North African Muslims go to Spain because it’s close to them nothing more nothing less, then some go to France or Britain.

Instead of, say, the shit hole your family came from. I wish they'd all go elsewhere. A burden on the welfare state.


Btw what’s Spain greatest accomplishment? Bull fighting ROFL

Sending soldiers to Iraq and having an easy time of it.

[Mortimer]

Not really. I'm consistent. You both are too stubborn (or dumb) to differentiate privilege from merit. Those are 2 different concepts.

You give them merit because they are white, thats privilege they didnt do anything for it.

[Incal]

You give them merit because they are white, thats privilege they didnt do anything for it.

lol why do you live in Austria instead of Ghana, Algeria or China?

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Well, even his own fellow Canadian Wadaad used to tell me many times he was "special needs".

Yeah.

Now I feel bad because I am picking on someone who doesn't know better. But he says such stupid shit that I sometimes find it difficult not to say something.

I still talk to Wadaad on occasion. He has a youtube channel.

[StonyArabia]

Aren't you the same moron who would shit on the Angloshpere? Suddenly you're a Canadian patriot.

It’s called appreciating my home. Btw I criticised American and British imperialism that’s all. Yeah I do love Canada.


Who is 'we'? The Moors were predominately Berbers and their leadership from the Levant. You're from neither.

Arabs Semitic people. The leadership was not only from the Levant but from Arabia itself. The Ummyads were from Arabia. Yemenites were also present there.


Yeah, you do.

It’s war torn nation, what do you expect genius. Though I am from there by background and blood.



Yeah, and Canadians don't want you there.

I am Canadian, no they want me here.



Apparently, you don't because you spoke about East Asians and now you're talking about Spain, for some reason.

I said I am not going to dignify your response that’s why.


Instead of, say, the shit hole your family came from. I wish they'd all go elsewhere. A burden on the welfare state.

My whole family works actually and are highly educated. They work in engineering, medicine, pharmacy, teachers etc. Those who don’t often work as skilled labourers and have never touched welfare. We bring benefit to this nation. Welfare is for lazy low IQ imbeciles.


Sending soldiers to Iraq and having an easy time of it.

I doubt it. The Americans nor British had easy time, the Spanish did lol. We are not semi civilized Aztecs or Incas, remember you were Arab for 800 years lol.

[Incal]

Yeah.

Now I feel bad because I am picking on someone who doesn't know better. But he says such stupid shit that I sometimes find it difficult not to say something.

I still talk to Wadaad on occasion. He has a youtube channel.

Yeah, sometimes it's hard to tell the difference on Internet while it would be way easier to realize IRL. That's why I also avoid to interact with people I have on my "handicapped" list.

[Mortimer]

lol why do you live in Austria instead of Ghana, Algeria or China?

I live in Austria because it is close to where I was born, and because I live here my whole life already. I think in China I would be economically not much worse off too, Germans go to China to work. In Algeria or Ghana I would be probably worse off economically, if you refer to economics only.

[Incal]

I live in Austria because it is close to where I was born, and because I live here my whole life already. I think in China I would be economically not much worse off too, Germans go to China to work. In Algeria or Ghana I would be probably worse off economically, if you refer to economics only.

OK, and who managed to make those economic conditions in Austria better than in those other places? The Martians?

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

It’s called appreciating my home. Btw I criticised American and British imperialism that’s all. Yeah I do love Canada.

There is a difference between criticizing and shitting on and you would shit on anything Anglo. You kept whining about Anglos and that probably has to do with them picking on you.


Arabs Semitic people.

You're half Iraqi and half Circassian.


The leadership was not only from the Levant but from Arabia itself. The Ummyads were from Arabia. Yemenites were also present there.

By the time of the invasion of Spain, they were Levantine. You are correct, however, that there were Yemenites, but you're not Yemenite.



It’s war torn nation, east do you expect genius.

I expect that area of the world to reflect its average IQ, which it does.


Though I am there by background and blood.

Nah, you're in the comforts of Canada, while other people do the fighting. You're certainly not bleeding for Iraq.



I am Canadian, no they want me here.

No, they don't. They look at you and see a foreigner. Didn't you get the shit kicked out of you when you were a kid by the WASPs?

Such a great Semitic Arab warrior...




I said I am not going to dignify your response that’s why.

Instead, you're going to argue with me about something that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. You know you're dumb. So instead of discussing the topic, you go on about.. "But... but... Spain... and my low IQ ancestors!!! We wuz Kangz!!!"




My whole family works actually and are highly educated. They work in engineering, medicine, pharmacy. We bring benefit to this nation.

I'm not even talking about your family. I'm talking about Muslim immigrants to Spain. You didn't learn English in Canada?



I doubt it. The Americans nor British had easy time, the Spanish did lol.

They all had an easy time of it. The Iraqi government exists because of the US government. It's not difficult to defeat a bunch of morons who can't walk without tripping over themselves.


We are not semi civilized Aztecs or Incas, remember you were Arab for 800 years lol.

You're as ignorant of the Aztecs and Incas as you are of the Iraqi war. Just play Pokemon. A child's game.

[Blondie]

I live in Austria because it is close to where I was born, and because I live here my whole life already. I think in China I would be economically not much worse off too, Germans go to China to work. In Algeria or Ghana I would be probably worse off economically, if you refer to economics only.

In China you would be in gulag very quickly because the communist party don't like such freeloaders like you. You would die outside of Austria. Funny that you are crying about white privilege when white taxpayers finance your life. So why don't you stop it?

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

If I was Mortimer I'd thank God every day I live in Austria where the mentally ill are taken care of. Although I believe it does more harm than good to just give people money even if they are mentally ill. Work is good for the soul. If the government will give him money then they should also give him something productive to do even if it's simple. He'll feel better about himself.

I'd argue too much free time for the mentally ill makes them worse. Look at this dude. He spends his money on swords and prostitutes (they don't even have sex. They just take his money), and talks about the game Second Life like it's his real life.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=269bOZvEoFk

[Incal]

If I was Mortimer I'd thank God every day I live in Austria where the mentally ill are taken care of. Although I believe it does more harm than good to just give people money even if they are mentally ill. Work is good for the soul. If the government will give him money then they should also give him something productive to do even if it's simple. He'll feel better about himself.

I'd argue too much free time for the mentally ill makes them worse. Look at this dude. He spends his money on swords and prostitutes (they don't even have sex. They just take his money), and talks about the game Second Life like it's his real life.


Let's be honest: if him and the other parasite would have been born in any other time period they would be dead by now. As a a matter of fact, if there weren't for the "white privilege" they bitch about and they never had been granted asylum, they'd probably be dead by now too.

Maybe this is a little extreme, but just to prove your point (and mine too). Look at this guy:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FHO3W59XsAs9bDm?format=jpg&name=900x900

This is in my country. Dude has no legs but he still goes out everyday to work and bring some food to his table. How do you think he'll react if you tell him about 2 useless fatasses who don't do shit the whole day and receive a check for wasting bandwidth? He'll probably break all the brooms he got on those 2 empty heads.

[Zeno]

Well...

If you call constant assosiation of whites with every evil, historical or present, as "white privilege", that's fine too.
If you call blaming a white person for even breathing at this point, while basically declaring a non-white verified criminal innocent as "white privilege", it's also fine.
If you call codemning the thoughts of whites on their own demographic replacement due to immigration or displacement from other races as "white privilege", that's completely fine.
If you call having all your thoughts cancelled and excluded out of the debate because of being white as "white privilege", guess what: completely fine too.

But any of these are just opinions. Objectively, this isn't white privilege. Because being blamed for everything on Earth, being declared guilty for things you haven't even done, not being able to express concerns over your own demographics and being excluded from conversation because you belong in a particular race aren't indicative of a privileged position in which anyone can be. It rather sounds as the worst possible thing you can be fated on.

[JamesBond007]

So I've been hearing a lot of turmoil about "white-passing" individuals on being "invisible POC" and whatnot.

But isn't white privilege based solely on what you look like? I mean, haven't people been literally lynched and whatnot for their skin color? I can't imagine a "white-passing" person who's waltzed through life and achieved social success having the right to call themself a POC. If they've been treated better for their fair skin, to the hindrance of the others, then isn't that the definition of white privilege?

If these white-passing people walk abroad, virtually everyone will assume they're white. People will treat them better due to their fair skin. It doesn't matter where they're from. The vast majority of people aren't gonna scan over your genetics and interrogate your racial origin. To most of the world, you will be seen as white. I have known "white-passing" people who've been harassed in POC enclaves for their fair skin. People really overestimate the extent to which people give a shit where you're from.

I mean if you are asked to describe a white-passing person to an investigations department, would you not describe them as a white Caucasian? Does actual origin matter in these scenarios?

The more I think about it, the more that "white-passing" just seems like an excuse for racists to exclude clearly white individuals for socio-political reasons. There are a crap ton of white people living outside of Europe, supremacists just don't want to admit this, because it goes against their belief in a mythical white race. Social "perception" is no match against demographic fact. Own up to it.

If you have fair skin and Caucasoid features, you're WHITE, and you benefit from white privilege. PHENOTYPE reigns supreme in America. I can't help but chuckle when these jackasses act like their race is an opinion and try to lump themselves in with actual POC. It feels like cheating.

'White' means nothing to me it some kind of crazy demented American idea. America is like number 17 in quality of life standards below all Herrenvolk Germanic countries. Why would anyone identify as 'white' instead of Germanic or Dutch, Norwegian or German etc.. ? So the ethnic herrenvolk through their natural industrious superiority have higher quality standard of living than America a non-Germanic nation so who cares WTF 'white' means ? Then Americans are crazy enough to be like , yeah, 'white man evil' lets flood the country with more non-Germanic people and turn it into a permanent democrat-run country like South American level style corruptness all the while discriminating againt 'white males' in affirmative action and set-asides while claiming 'white males are oppressing everyone else' . Democrats in America are insane and Chinese leaders are stone-cold sane it is that simple and Democrats will ruin America even more etc... :

1 Switzerland 188.36 102.77 78.38 74.08 125.02 8.18 28.67 19.86 80.05
2 Denmark 186.25 86.43 73.78 79.79 88.53 7.00 28.69 21.29 81.80
3 Netherlands 180.27 76.65 72.84 75.28 78.93 7.28 27.64 25.39 87.00
4 Finland 178.95 80.11 72.41 76.19 76.35 8.57 28.91 11.99 56.64
5 Australia 178.41 91.07 56.97 77.86 80.75 7.27 34.81 23.69 92.70
6 Iceland 177.64 67.30 76.25 65.85 99.67 6.11 19.90 15.97 68.81
7 Austria 176.36 68.69 74.46 76.98 74.87 10.91 25.67 20.42 77.15
8 Germany 175.24 89.86 64.21 73.49 67.85 8.88 31.22 27.81 82.82
9 New Zealand 173.60 74.89 57.12 73.59 76.31 7.78 30.72 23.72 96.69
10 Luxembourg 171.81 87.76 65.87 72.92 85.30 13.00 31.79 23.27 82.62
11 Norway 171.72 73.55 66.28 75.59 103.56 8.09 26.93 18.09 68.68
12 Estonia 171.16 56.58 76.29 72.68 53.77 9.37 24.44 19.72 64.28
13 Sweden 170.19 85.44 52.00 68.82 75.89 7.71 29.77 18.46 74.92
14 Oman 168.82 74.87 79.66 58.42 49.64 5.45 23.02 37.21 67.22
15 Slovenia 165.74 52.08 77.72 65.19 56.40 11.67 26.93 22.65 77.56
16 Japan 164.06 76.01 77.81 80.21 81.15 11.59 39.96 39.10 85.27
17 United States 163.60 94.32 52.19 69.11 70.55 4.04 32.87 39.26 77.49
18 Spain 163.48 58.50 66.68 78.85 56.64 9.22 29.28 39.73 93.65
19 Lithuania 160.29 52.80 66.58 70.91 46.04 10.49 25.81 26.67 69.86
20 Portugal 159.83 40.54 70.09 71.85 50.65 12.92 29.33 30.19 97.81

https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7OYUcKC7Dw

https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/024/635/1501197863351.png

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fveteransinpolitics.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F11%2FAmerican-flag-burning.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

[Borealis]

Let's be honest: if him and the other parasite would have been born in any other time period they would be dead by now. As a a matter of fact, if there weren't for the "white privilege" they bitch about and they never had been granted asylum, they'd probably be dead by now too.

Maybe this is a little extreme, but just to prove your point (and mine too). Look at this guy:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FHO3W59XsAs9bDm?format=jpg&name=900x900

This is in my country. Dude has no legs but he still goes out everyday to work and bring some food to his table. How do you think he'll react if you tell him about 2 useless fatasses who don't do shit the whole day and receive a check for wasting bandwidth? He'll probably break all the brooms he got on those 2 empty heads.

No offense but why are all Latinos on TA desperate to be white and appeal to extreme right wing views

[StonyArabia]

No offense but why are all Latinos on TA desperate to be white and appeal to extreme right wing views

Because they are colonized mentally that’s why.

[Incal]

No offense but why are all Latinos on TA desperate to be white and appeal to extreme right wing views

None taken. But I can not answer if you do not show proof of your statement.




Because they are colonized mentally that’s why.

Says the one living in Canada.

[mashail]

....

[mashail]

There is a difference between criticizing and shitting on and you would shit on anything Anglo. You kept whining about Anglos and that probably has to do with them picking on you.



You're half Iraqi and half Circassian.



By the time of the invasion of Spain, they were Levantine. You are correct, however, that there were Yemenites, but you're not Yemenite.




I expect that area of the world to reflect its average IQ, which it does.



Nah, you're in the comforts of Canada, while other people do the fighting. You're certainly not bleeding for Iraq.




No, they don't. They look at you and see a foreigner. Didn't you get the shit kicked out of you when you were a kid by the WASPs?

Such a great Semitic Arab warrior...





Instead, you're going to argue with me about something that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. You know you're dumb. So instead of discussing the topic, you go on about.. "But... but... Spain... and my low IQ ancestors!!! We wuz Kangz!!!"





I'm not even talking about your family. I'm talking about Muslim immigrants to Spain. You didn't learn English in Canada?




They all had an easy time of it. The Iraqi government exists because of the US government. It's not difficult to defeat a bunch of morons who can't walk without tripping over themselves.



You're as ignorant of the Aztecs and Incas as you are of the Iraqi war. Just play Pokemon. A child's game.


You're half Iraqi and half Circassian.



By the time of the invasion of Spain, they were Levantine. You are correct, however, that there were Yemenites, but you're not Yemenite.

Hi, I just want to clarify something about this Iraq is a very diverse country with many backgrounds I am Iraqi myself and after I did the DNA test I was almost half Arab and about 30% Levant 10% Armenia \ Azerbaijan \ Anatolia with smaller ancestry from Europe and NA. So being Iraqi is just an identity and in the past days people used to emigrate a lot and that is why you will find many Iraqis being genetically almost half Arab which means they have Arab ancestors from Arabia, StoneyArabia himself is half Iraqi Bedouin so basically he's half Arabian peninsular.

[Chocolate_Hound]

White passing is definitely a meaningful and legitimate term. Whether someone benefits or not from people thinking they are white, that does not mean they *are* white. Your race does not change based on what idiots perceive it to be. Your subjective experience might.

I disagree. What about Muslim Europeans? There are people who would argue they're not white because they follow Islam, and "other" them. These people can face the same religious discrimination as "white-passing" members outside the continent.

Race isn't a fixed category, the fact is that the Caucasian race extends outside of Europe. It's the idiots who DON'T want to admit this who are corrupting the pool. Not some mythical "European" race. Socio-political exclusion is the only reason why "white-passing" is considered legit. Like someone said before, these people are functionally white, they just haven't been accepted into the social circle of white people.

[Chocolate_Hound]

Depends on how you define white privilege. I would imagine that in China a white person has white privilege compared to a black person as well. Even in Nigeria he would be, that is the legacy of colonialism. In Nigeria they might smile and call him sahib, also they are usually richer, then the rest, not always but usually. Thats why a white person is usually a expat not a immigrant. Im saying this neutral, not that I hate whites or want to shame them or guilt them. Like saying check your white privilege, in some countries like the USA or elsewhere there are also many homeless whites etc.

In these instances, white is obviously referring to look. Nobody's going to do a genetic scan to see if these people are "genetically" white. They'll just be perceived as white people. So a white-passing person and a white person in these nations have an equal amount of privilege. People are judging them based on phenotype.

[Mortimer]

I disagree. What about Muslim Europeans? There are people who would argue they're not white because they follow Islam, and "other" them. These people can face the same religious discrimination as "white-passing" members outside the continent.

Race isn't a fixed category, the fact is that the Caucasian race extends outside of Europe. It's the idiots who DON'T want to admit this who are corrupting the pool. Not some mythical "European" race. Socio-political exclusion is the only reason why "white-passing" is considered legit. Like someone said before, these people are functionally white, they just haven't been accepted into the social circle of white people.

There are people who are not fully caucasian who may pass as white, you talk about middle easterners that they are white. What about white passing people who are not caucasian?

[Mortimer]

In these instances, white is obviously referring to look. Nobody's going to do a genetic scan to see if these people are "genetically" white. They'll just be perceived as white people. So a white-passing person and a white person in these nations have an equal amount of privilege. People are judging them based on phenotype.

You dont need a genetic scan to know if someone is white, it is enough if you know his name and where he is from, who his family is. That is clear after a 5 minutes talk or if you see him with family members or in a group.

[zebruh]

I love my white privilege. When i get up in the morning, colored slaves bring caviar to me. When i have been to India, the maharaja knelt before me and he said im subhuman compared to you. Complete TV crews followed me everywhere and the peoples threw roses wherever i go. Or if im going to the supermarket, the colored peoples are gonna lay down on the street, just because they dont want to get my shoes dirty. And that happens every day, so white privilege is cool.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/FrequentWearyIsabellineshrike-size_restricted.gifLay off the fentenyle please.

Was kinda funny though not gunna lie.

[Chocolate_Hound]

You dont need a genetic scan to know if someone is white, it is enough if you know his name and where he is from, who his family is. That is clear after a 5 minutes talk or if you see him with family members or in a group.

So my point again. Are Muslim Europeans white, because they fail to meet so many of these criteria?

[zebruh]

In these instances, white is obviously referring to look. Nobody's going to do a genetic scan to see if these people are "genetically" white. They'll just be perceived as white people. So a white-passing person and a white person in these nations have an equal amount of privilege. People are judging them based on phenotype.My step father is white passing and was blond but when he was in the army he used to fight with southerners because some were racists. Hes puerto rican so they called him mongrel but he boxed so he would beat them up.
He was blond and looked white but the blacks treated him better than whites from the south.
Alot of people here that are white passing from latin america dont realize 30 years ago you looking white wouldn't matter too much to some people.

[Mortimer]

So my point again. Are Muslim Europeans white, because they fail to meet so many of these criteria?

To me they are white, if they are fully european. I dont know whether middle easterners are white, but there are clearly non-caucasian people who sometimes pass as white like that half chinese in Superboy. She is half chinese so definitely non-white. Someone posted a white passing woman with afram father and mullato looking brother. I dont consider those people white.

[Chocolate_Hound]

To me they are white, if they are fully european. I dont know whether middle easterners are white, but there are clearly non-caucasian people who sometimes pass as white like that half chinese in Superboy. She is half chinese so definitely non-white. Someone posted a white passing woman with afram father and mullato looking brother. I dont consider those people white.

I would say Levantines and non-admixed Berbers from North Africa are 100% white Caucasoids.

[Mortimer]

I would say Levantines and non-admixed Berbers from North Africa are 100% white Caucasoids.

Thats possible, that is also culturally a adjustent region of europe, historically geographically etc. part of the roman empire etc.

[Borealis]

OP has contradicted himself by saying that being white is based off appearance but then saying that east euros are not white because they did not participate in colonialism.

[Chocolate_Hound]

OP has contradicted himself by saying that being white is based off appearance but then saying that east euros are not white because they did not participate in colonialism.

TBH scratch that thread and the jackass who made it.

BTW Russians did "colonize" Mongolia, Central Asia, Caucasus, but it's "different" because it was a land empire not an overseas outpost one. Similar to Ottoman history.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

So that's who hurt you? Aw, I'm so sorry.

Wow, jokes about pedophilia. Only scumbags joke about pedophilia.

That little shit that you're defending decided to go off topic because he couldn't defend his idiotic position about East Asians worshipping White people. He said something stupid, which he typically does, and which you typically do, as well, so I can understand the bond you currently have with him. You're a worthless human being.


Maybe that's why you're so fucking bitter and annoying at it too. As they say, it gets better!

Take a poll on who the forum thinks is more annoying and you'll win hands down, and you've only been here a few months. You have half as many TU received as you have posts: you don't get the hint.

" Originally Posted by Colonel Frank Grimes View Post
I was touched by my dad and now I have social issues, hence my autistic behaviour and snarky comments."

What kind of scumbag writes that? A lowly piece of shit who is also a dumb cunt.

This is especially annoying because of my father's serious health issues. Without question, if bashing your skull into a street curb repeatedly until you die (and then some) would improve my father's health by 0.0001% I would do so without question because you don't matter in this world.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

You're half Iraqi and half Circassian.



By the time of the invasion of Spain, they were Levantine. You are correct, however, that there were Yemenites, but you're not Yemenite.

Hi, I just want to clarify something about this Iraq is a very diverse country with many backgrounds I am Iraqi myself and after I did the DNA test I was almost half Arab and about 30% Levant 10% Armenia \ Azerbaijan \ Anatolia with smaller ancestry from Europe and NA. So being Iraqi is just an identity and in the past days people used to emigrate a lot and that is why you will find many Iraqis being genetically almost half Arab which means they have Arab ancestors from Arabia, StoneyArabia himself is half Iraqi Bedouin so basically he's half Arabian peninsular.

StonyArabia is half retard who instead of discussing his stupid comment about East Asians wanting to be White people - probably because of his own self-esteem issues as a foreigner living among WASPs who beat him up in school and so he has issues- he wants to moronically rant about how 'we wuz kangz!!!

[Chocolate_Hound]

StonyArabia is half retard who instead of discussing his stupid comment about East Asians wanting to be White people - probably because of his own self-esteem issues as a foreigner living among WASPs who beat him up in school and so he has issues- he wants to moronically rant about how 'we wuz kangz!!!

There is no white race. It's all a stupid invention to divide humanity into pieces.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

There is no white race. It's all a stupid invention to divide humanity into pieces.

Tell me that when you're a target in a race riot in our beloved USA. You're not being targeted because your ancestry is specifically Italian, or German, or whatever. You're targeted because you're White.

[TheForeigner]

No such thing as white privilege and people were lynched for crimes, not skin color.

[Pro.crasti.nation]

Born and raised in England. 44yrs old, almost 45. Never in my life have I seen or felt in the presence of "white privilege". And, unlike many other people, I've worked with millionaires, billionaires and council workers.

The City types were invariably upper crust and landed. From a girl whose parents used to own vast tracts of Zimbabwe (they returned to England in the '90s, she still had a Richard E. Grant type accent to her English) to another whose grand-mother supped with Adolf Hitler(!). Yet they worked hard and long, usually 6am till 6pm, though they also tended to socialise with those that they worked with. Very incestuous.

I got in, as did many other Indians and Sikhs, from what I saw of The City. And all of us had a fair crack at things. I never experienced any racism but, I definitely saw racism towards blacks, coming from a particular American woman who was consulting for Bank of NY. She once asked me to look over an Annual Report (for some bony client), because she thought that there might have been too many blacks in the labour force photos. She assumed that we shared similar prejudices.

Same with my Jewish (Ashkenazi) boss, who would complain about the English and how they made fun of him as a child ("Father Christmas won't visit your home! You don't believe in Jesus", etc., inane childish stuff), and would ask if I had experienced similar things. I had not. Nothing whatsoever.

There definitely is a strain of antisemitism and anti-black racism, maybe anti-muslim, too... but these things tend to be mostly in the banter on the fringes. The professional class is wholly soulless corporate-globalist type.


What is more disturbing, imo, is the impact of Leftist race baiting and the endless drone about "racism", in that it convinces insecure minorities, that their failures are not their own but the actions of "the white man". It makes people second guess themselves, wonder if they've been "victims" without knowing it, etc., and of course, it fosters needless resentment.

[Chocolate_Hound]

Tell me that when you're a target in a race riot in our beloved USA. You're not being targeted because your ancestry is specifically Italian, or German, or whatever. You're targeted because you're White.

You'd be surprised how "white-passing" people have also had anti-white racial slurs pushed against them.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

You'd be surprised how "white-passing" people have also had anti-white racial slurs pushed against them.

Racists get a free pass at hating White people and so I'm not shocked that "white-passing" people get anti-White slurs hurled at them.

[Babak]

I got called a white supremacist because i support the constitution lol. I got called a redneck one time too

[SilverKnight]

It's a myth.

[StonyArabia]

StonyArabia is half retard who instead of discussing his stupid comment about East Asians wanting to be White people - probably because of his own self-esteem issues as a foreigner living among WASPs who beat him up in school and so he has issues- he wants to moronically rant about how 'we wuz kangz!!!

Iberian you are speaking for yourself. I said in some East Asian nations whites are preferred even above their own, Japan is an exception to this. Also White males are even more privileged in dating Asian females than other males and yes even Asian males. If you are White guy, you are king in parts of East and Southeast Asia. There was even a half Asian on YouTube who talked about this topic. Stop bringing me, when I told you I am done with this topic.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Iberian you are speaking for yourself.

It isn't just my opinion. There are a number of people who think you're stupid. Even people you admire have the same opinion of you.


I said in some East Asian nations whites are preferred even above their own, Japan is an exception to this.

This is what you said:


Maybe parts of Africa but East Asians are the biggest white worshippers, especially true in Southeast Asia, Chinese used to have this type of attitude but it has lessened due to china’s rise probably gaining self confidence. India we all know the story.

You didn't bring up Japan specifically. I brought up Japan as well as South Korea to make a point that you couldn't grasp.

Your argument about preference to Whites actually applies to China unlike other East Asians and yet here you are saying the opposite because you're just dumb and ignorant. I can actually prove that by pointing out a weird cultural trend in China where they hire Whites to be fake people for a Chinaman's or their company's prestige but I'm not going to bother. I told you enough. I wasted enough time.


Also White males are even more privileged in dating Asian females than other males and yes even Asian males. If you are White guy, you are king in parts of East and Southeast Asia.

I addressed this specifically in a previous response that instead of answering you went on your 'We wuz kangz!!!! idiotic rant because you had nothing relevant to say and you still haven't addressed what I said. You're simply repeating yourself. Respond to my post where I addressed your retardation on the subject or don't bother me.


There was even a half Asian on YouTube who talked about this topic.

For realz? Well, that settles everything. A random person on youtube.


Stop bringing me, when I told you I am done with this topic.

You're not clearly done with the topic if a week (or is it over a week later?) after I stopped virtually bitch slapping your dumb ass you come back to basically say, "I'm going to repeat what I said as if that addresses what you said because I'm stupid."

How about you not draw my attention back to a subject - that I talked about a week or weeks ago; however long it has been - just to tell me the same stupid shit I already addressed.

You can take the 3rd Worlder out of the 3rd World but you can't take generations of inbreeding out of the 3rd Worlder. Now Canadians are stuck with your stupidity.

[Grace O'Malley]

The United States vigilante mobs lynched Italians and Irish, too. You are wrong about the idea of what it even means to be "white" in this context. Any in-group eventually fights itself anyway without sustained outside pressure to ensure cohesion. It's part of the nature of humanity.


Do you have a link of Irish being lynched? If it did happen (& I have not found any incidents) this would not be because they weren't viewed as white because they were. The Italian incident was because a mob lynched 11 Italians because of their suspected involvement in the murder of police chief David Hennessy who was the son of Irish Catholics also not to do with the fact that they were non-white.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hennessy

[Turul Karom]

Do you have a link of Irish being lynched? If it did happen (& I have not found any incidents) this would not be because they weren't viewed as white because they were. The Italian incident was because a mob lynched 11 Italians because of their suspected involvement in the murder of police chief David Hennessy who was the son of Irish Catholics also not to do with the fact that they were non-white.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hennessy

Sure, I'll do what I can.

First of all, I don't ever use Wikipedia as a single source. Even most of their linked sources are either 404s or circular blog posts that just reference each other.

Second, I've seen many white (by today's standards) Irish lynched with a last name Mc-Something. While they might not have been lynched for being Irish exclusively, it's obvious that it didn't help as they weren't seen as really being "white" like Anglo-Saxons were. Hence all of the monkey/black man comparisons for Irish in both USA and England:

https://i.ibb.co/TKLvWhP/irish-frankenstein.jpg (https://ibb.co/9wt8ZYy)
https://i.ibb.co/WFmnHVW/mr-gorilla-irish-racism.jpg (https://ibb.co/VDfVLwW)
https://i.ibb.co/QKhZzKK/The-Irish-King-of-A-Shantee.jpg (https://ibb.co/W27Qq22)

Third, there are many more Italian lynchings than what you just posted. They certainly were not seen as white but rather as an intermediary racial group of sorts, and this is documented well from historical sources and references and eve photos. Some people in lynch mobs that hung Italians even went out of their way to place Italian stereotypes of the time on their bodies after they'd died to emphasize their "Italian racial heritage" like Italian-made pipes, daggers, home goods, etc.

Here is a quote and a link to an academic paper that discusses the issue of Italians not being seen as white and the many times they were lynched in America in great detail.

Paper:
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/modlang/carasi/courses/0000000.SPRING.17.TEACHING/03.ITAL-AM.spring17/04.ITAM.COURSE.MATERIALS/ITAM.ARTICLES/SALVETTI.complete.pdf

https://i.ibb.co/pvfKpXJ/Screenshot-2022-01-10-at-00-20-05-Microsoft-Word-000-Front-matter-docx-SALVETTI-complete-pdf.png (https://ibb.co/kg4DFcQ)

[Norway12]

I had white privilege in Dominican Republic... I experienced what was like to be considered "superior" to others for the color of my skin, hair texture, features... all this despite not being white... other countries see whiteness very differently... white privilege exist even in countries with hardly any white people... so to answer the question; yes

[Creoda]

^That is not an academic paper, just a book from some leftist academic (who wants to create an historical narrative), and papers from the social sciences are hardly trustworthy. It's utter crap either way.

You need to think about the political motivations of those constantly pushing this revisionism about historical whiteness, and use a bit of logic/common sense.

[Grace O'Malley]

Sure, I'll do what I can.

First of all, I don't ever use Wikipedia as a single source. Even most of their linked sources are either 404s or circular blog posts that just reference each other.

Second, I've seen many white (by today's standards) Irish lynched with a last name Mc-Something. While they might not have been lynched for being Irish exclusively, it's obvious that it didn't help as they weren't seen as really being "white" like Anglo-Saxons were. Hence all of the monkey/black man comparisons for Irish in both USA and England:

https://i.ibb.co/TKLvWhP/irish-frankenstein.jpg (https://ibb.co/9wt8ZYy)
https://i.ibb.co/WFmnHVW/mr-gorilla-irish-racism.jpg (https://ibb.co/VDfVLwW)
https://i.ibb.co/QKhZzKK/The-Irish-King-of-A-Shantee.jpg (https://ibb.co/W27Qq22)

Third, there are many more Italian lynchings than what you just posted. They certainly were not seen as white but rather as an intermediary racial group of sorts, and this is documented well from historical sources and references and eve photos. Some people in lynch mobs that hung Italians even went out of their way to place Italian stereotypes of the time on their bodies after they'd died to emphasize their "Italian racial heritage" like Italian-made pipes, daggers, home goods, etc.

Here is a quote and a link to an academic paper that discusses the issue of Italians not being seen as white and the many times they were lynched in America in great detail.

Paper:
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/modlang/carasi/courses/0000000.SPRING.17.TEACHING/03.ITAL-AM.spring17/04.ITAM.COURSE.MATERIALS/ITAM.ARTICLES/SALVETTI.complete.pdf

https://i.ibb.co/pvfKpXJ/Screenshot-2022-01-10-at-00-20-05-Microsoft-Word-000-Front-matter-docx-SALVETTI-complete-pdf.png (https://ibb.co/kg4DFcQ)

So no there isn't any. What is the point of posting Punch type illustrations? That's like posting Irish jokes. As someone who has researched this topic in detail there is no evidence of Irish being lynched because they were Irish and Irish were never seen as non-white. It's annoying that people post this stuff.

Irish of course had plenty of bigotry but there was no legislation barring them for being non-white which is why you will see plenty of Irish even in the 1800s that were successful.

[Turul Karom]

^That is not an academic paper, just a book from some leftist academic (who wants to create an historical narrative), and papers from the social sciences are hardly trustworthy. It's utter crap either way.

You need to think about the political motivations of the those constantly pushing this revisionism about historical whiteness, and use a bit of logic/common sense.

There are many citations to historical press papers and quotes on the bottom of each page. I quoted only a small amount in my screen shot. I suggest looking them over to see the direct quotes from Americans at the time regarding their opinion on Italians. I am well aware of the racial motives that are bubbling all around the West today in regards to these sorts of things. It hardly matters as nobody but the most ardent Nordicist would today see an Italian as "black." Regardless, the people of the time served plenty of historical grievance material and ammunition for the people of the present to work with on a silver platter with their constant insistence that Italians could never be white.

[Turul Karom]

So no there isn't any. What is the point of posting Punch type illustrations? That's like posting Irish jokes. As someone who has researched this topic in detail there is no evidence of Irish being lynched because they were Irish and Irish were never seen as non-white. It's annoying that people post this stuff.

Irish of course had plenty of bigotry but there was no legislation barring them for being non-white which is why you will see plenty of Irish even in the 1800s that were successful.

It seems to me like they were always seen as an inferior ethnicity based on their separation from Anglo-Saxon heritage.

Do you think that these Irish people are seen as whites at the time when they are described as being descended from Iberian-African mixes and pictured as such?

https://thomasnastcartoons.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/scientific_racism_irish-1899.jpg

[Creoda]

There are many citations to historical press papers and quotes on the bottom of each page. I quoted only a small amount in my screen shot. I suggest looking them over to see the direct quotes from Americans at the time regarding their opinion on Italians. I am well aware of the racial motives that are bubbling all around the West today in regards to these sorts of things. It hardly matters as nobody but the most ardent Nordicist would today see an Italian as "black." Regardless, the people of the time served plenty of historical grievance material and ammunition for the people of the present to work with on a silver platter with their constant insistence that Italians could never be white.
Leaving aside the Italian issue, with regards to the Irish, yes they were looked down on by Protestant British obviously. But the racial dimension of that (that they were seen as 'less white' or not white) is just a political invention of the late 20th century. Cartoons/caricatures from a couple of pulp magazines were not serious publications, they even portrayed Charles Darwin as a monkey once. They were political humour, before political correctness, basically trolling of their day. You'd have to think people were retarded and colourblind 150 years ago to seriously think that; the Irish are more pale than the English in reality. Actually it's just people today that are retarded, believing this nonsense.

Irish were British nationals in the 19th century, about 1/4 of the armed forces were Irish. The Duke of Wellington, national hero at Waterloo, was even considered Irish in Britain. The Union Jack has St Patrick's saltire on it, representing Ireland as the third Kingdom in the Union. The divide and disdain for Irish was primarily religious based, even so, there was already a lot of mixing between lower class English and Irish in the 19th century. A large proportion of English people have Irish Catholic ancestry from then.

[Dick]

Leaving aside the Italian issue, with regards to the Irish, yes they were looked down on by Protestant British obviously. But the racial dimension of that (that they were seen as 'less white' or not white) is just a political invention of the late 20th century. Cartoons/caricatures from a couple of pulp magazines were not serious publications, they even portrayed Charles Darwin as a monkey once. They were political humour, before political correctness, basically trolling of their day. You'd have to think people were retarded and colourblind 150 years ago to think that; the Irish are more pale than the English in reality. Actually it's just people today that are retarded, believing this nonsense.

Irish were British nationals in the 19th century, about 1/4 of the armed forces were Irish. The Duke of Wellington, national hero at Waterloo, was even considered Irish in Britain. The Union Jack has St Patrick's saltire on it, representing Ireland as the third Kingdom in the Union. The divide and disdain for Irish was primarily religious based, even so, there was already a lot of mixing between lower class English and Irish in the 19th century. A large proportion of English people have distant Irish Catholic ancestry from then.

This guy, eh? I've seen this painting a gazillion times since I live in Waterloo-Wellington county

https://www.wellingtoncollection.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/first-duke-960x960.jpg

[Turul Karom]

Leaving aside the Italian issue, with regards to the Irish, yes they were looked down on by Protestant British obviously. But the racial dimension of that (that they were seen as 'less white') is just a political invention of the late 20th century. Cartoons/caricatures from a couple of pulp magazines were not serious publications, they even portrayed Charles Darwin as a monkey once. They were political humour, before political correctness, basically trolling of their day. You'd have to think people were retarded and colourblind 150 years ago to think that; the Irish are more pale than the English in reality. Actually it's just people today that are retarded, believing this nonsense.

They were often seen as less white because they were seen as descendants of Africans and other people seen as primitives before mixing with fairer skinned peoples to become pale. The reason why there is always caricatures of them as non-white is because that was the edge of the humor: most people saw them as non-white, hence the irony.

What's even more ironic is that Benjamin Franklin must have been blind since he considered only Anglo-Saxons as white, even when compared to the pale Germans and Scandinavians lol.

His exact quote:

24. Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionally very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.

Being "white" has always meant a variety of things depending on the time period and is ever-expanding in its definition of itself, hence why it's better for Europeans and others to focus on ethnicity.



Irish were British nationals in the 19th century, at least 1/4 of the armed forces were Irish. The Duke of Wellington, national hero at Waterloo, was even considered Irish in Britain. The Union Jack has St Patrick's saltire on it, representing Ireland as the third Kingdom in the Union. The divide and disdain for Irish was primarily religious based, even so, there was already a lot of mixing between lower class English and Irish in the 19th century. A huge proportion of English people have distant Irish Catholic ancestry from then.

So? People become seem to become white quick. It happens in one generation sometimes. One of the main reasons is because the Irish supplanted the "native" Anglos who failed to prevent their immigration en-masse to the Americas, and now they are being replaced in-turn by browns/Latins. Such is the fate of racial and ethnic groups in empires when they run out of blood-oil for grinding into the machine; their time in the sun ends.

[Anglo-Celtic]

So no there isn't any. What is the point of posting Punch type illustrations? That's like posting Irish jokes. As someone who has researched this topic in detail there is no evidence of Irish being lynched because they were Irish and Irish were never seen as non-white. It's annoying that people post this stuff.

Irish of course had plenty of bigotry but there was no legislation barring them for being non-white which is why you will see plenty of Irish even in the 1800s that were successful.

Most of it comes down to religious bigotry. A fully Gaelic Irish Baptist preacher, from County Galway, would be more welcomed than an Anglo-Saxon "papist" from Sussex, England. Their hair color and skin tone wouldn't even matter. They could even look like twins.

[Creoda]

They were often seen as less white because they were seen as descendants of Africans and other people seen as primitives before mixing with fairer skinned peoples to become pale. The reason why there is always caricatures of them as non-white is because that was the edge of the humor: most people saw them as non-white, hence the irony. No they didn't. That's just what you want to be the case for some reason. They were officially considered White.



What's even more ironic is that Benjamin Franklin must have been blind since he considered only Anglo-Saxons as white, even when compared to the pale Germans and Scandinavians lol.

His exact quote:

24. Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionally very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.
Benjamin Franklin was one man in the 18th century, he and his cohort of the US Founding Fathers legislated that immigration to the US be open to all 'white people', which was not restricted to British, or even NW Europeans. He's not even explicitly talking in modern 'racial' terms there, but in terms of complexion/colour.



So? People become seem to become white quick. It happens in one generation sometimes. One of the main reasons is because the Irish supplanted the "native" Anglos who failed to prevent their immigration en-masse to the Americas, and now they are being replaced in-turn by browns/Latins. Such is the fate of racial and ethnic groups in empires when they run out of blood-oil for grinding into the machine; their time in the sun ends.
Stick to your fantasies about Hungarian history, you know little about the history of the US/Britain, other than what leftist drivel you choose to imbibe.

[Anglo-Celtic]

What's even more ironic is that Benjamin Franklin must have been blind since he considered only Anglo-Saxons as white, even when compared to the pale Germans and Scandinavians lol.

His exact quote:

24. Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionally very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.

That reminds me of a second Ben Franklin quote. "It must be true if it's on the internet."

[Grace O'Malley]

It seems to me like they were always seen as an inferior ethnicity based on their separation from Anglo-Saxon heritage.

Do you think that these Irish people are seen as whites at the time when they are described as being descended from Iberian-African mixes and pictured as such?

https://thomasnastcartoons.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/scientific_racism_irish-1899.jpg

You are posting cartoons as evidence? There was a lot of bigotry against the Irish due to their Catholicism but racially they were still seen as white and Celts. The English at the time looked upon themselves as Anglo-Saxons and the pinnacle of human beings. Sure you will find a lot of derogatory illustrations but you have to look at things like legislation.

The following link is on the topic.


In this sense, mainstream views of the Irish in Britain were close not to Smith's but to Godkin’s, who equated the Irish not with blacks, but with whites, in the American South. British and Irish unionists, in turn, were for Godkin not the equivalent of the Southern whites, but of those antebellum Northern advocates of radical reconstruction in the American South, to whom the Southern white was unfit for political liberty and “an irreclaimable person” whose thoughts centered on “murder and massacre and deception.” “There is no kind of politicians more familiar to the student of history” than such Northern radicals, Godkin suggested. “In Ireland he is the Orangeman; in Italy he used to be the Austrian; in Turkey he is the Turk; in England he was the old Tory, who thought the best remedy for Irish or colonial discontents was ‘a d—d good thrashing, sir.’”Footnote68 Self-government in Ireland thus recommended itself to Godkin as a coproject not of the emancipation of Southern slaves, and definitely not of radical policies to improve the condition of emancipated African Americans, but rather of the maintenance of modified white supremacy.


Curtis and Lebow are correct to detect changes over time in images of the Irish in Britain and to suggest that negative racial representations of the Irish were more potent around the time of the famine and in the mid-nineteenth century than in later periods.


At a moment when the then truce in the war of independence seemed fragile, with Lloyd George unwilling to accept Dáil President Eamon de Valera's assertion of full and independent Irish nationhood, in a moment of obvious irritation, Amery suggested: “There never was in history an Irish ‘nation’ in any political sense.” Amery added that there was “no Irish race,” the ethnic content of the Irish population being the same as Britain's except for a strain of “Celtic cavemen—a gorilla like creature … cowardly & murderous. What really exists in Ireland is not a race or a nation, but a poisonous tradition of hatred … crystallised by the accursed Church of Rome, & [deriving] some slight element of justification … from repressive laws & selfish Cobdenism.” Parts of this passage certainly evince a racialization of the Irish, although simultaneously in tension with Amery's suggestion that the Irish were not a race. Significantly however, Amery continued, “But this outburst is irrelevant to my real point which is a fear lest the need for a campaign all out over the Irish business may summon us all back post haste.”Footnote76 Amery was to make no serious effort at this time to prevent the grant of political autonomy to nationalist Ireland, confining such “outbursts” to his diaries and letters to friends. Indeed, Amery's official relations with the leaders of the new Irish Free State would be (excepting a few difficulties) cordial, and Amery personally favored, under certain conditions, a united Ireland.Footnote77 The political power of negative racial stereotypes of the Irish was sharply limited.


What is most interesting about Childers's argument, however, is its overt basis in the perceived “elementary principles of governing white men”:Footnote82 the Irish were considered worthy of self-government in Childers's pages precisely because they were perceived to be a white race. Childers asserted, “No white community of pride and spirit would willingly tolerate the grotesque form of Crown Colony administration, founded on force, and now tempered by a kind of paternal State Socialism under which Ireland lives to-day.”Footnote83 Implicitly, therefore, such a system of government would be appropriate for a nonwhite people. Childers's comments on the comparison between the experiences of Native Americans and the native Irish—a comparison in which Gibbons emphasizes similarities—are particularly revealing: “In America and Ireland the Colonies were bi-racial, with this all-important distinction, that in America the native race was coloured, savage, heathen, nomadic, incapable of fusion with the whites, and, in relation to the almost illimitable territory colonized, not numerous; while in Ireland the native race was white, civilized, Christian, numerous. … The parallel, then, in this respect, is slight, and becomes insignificant, except in regard to the similarity of the mental attitude of the colonists towards Indians and Irish respectively.”

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-british-studies/article/whiteness-of-ireland-under-and-after-the-union/0B84001EFDDD8B26BE5B931F6AD07108#fn74

What is the objective of people pushing this "Irish were seen as non-white"? I can understand that people want some solidarity in that the Irish could have sympathy with other people that were also colonised but what is the point that they were non-white?

This is at the beginning of the article I've linked.


After surveying some examples of this literature, this article will suggest serious historical and critical flaws in some common and often politically potent recent interpretations. First, there are those political teleologies that imply that to emphasize or exaggerate historical and contemporary verisimilitudes between the Irish and racialized nonwhite groups is to advance a politically progressive agenda. These can be faulted on both historical and theoretical grounds, in that they trivialize or misinterpret the plight of nonwhite victims of imperialism or subjugation, ironically overstate the beneficence of the British political elite, can be inimical to wider progressive coalitions, and may even understate the culpability of individuals from certain political locations in racism. Second, historical research that posits connections and equivalences between the experiences of the Irish and nonwhite groups, often under the influence of Perry Curtis's foundational scholarship, can unconsciously reenact partisan and unsatisfactory positions in British-Irish political debates of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Third, moments can be located in debates on Irish self-government, particularly discussions surrounding Erskine Childers's The Framework of Home Rule (first published in 1911), that involved clear acknowledgments in Britain of the whiteness of the Irish, and of their distance from nonwhite groups in racial and imperial hierarchies. Since these acknowledgments can be said to have been, in the long run, more politically significant than any countervailing tendencies, I will argue that while study of the racialization of groups and individuals in and from Ireland is certainly pertinent, it is a major distortion to emphasize moments of the equivalence of the positions in racialized hierarchies of the Irish and nonwhite groups.

So yes I agree they were seen as "inferior" in comparison to the English view of themselves but bigotry and discrimination doesn't mean they were seen as non-white. Other Europeans were also seen as inferior in Englishmen's eyes in that era.

[Universe]

They were often seen as less white because they were seen as descendants of Africans and other people seen as primitives before mixing with fairer skinned peoples to become pale. The reason why there is always caricatures of them as non-white is because that was the edge of the humor: most people saw them as non-white, hence the irony.

What's even more ironic is that Benjamin Franklin must have been blind since he considered only Anglo-Saxons as white, even when compared to the pale Germans and Scandinavians lol.

His exact quote:

24. Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionally very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.

Being "white" has always meant a variety of things depending on the time period and is ever-expanding in its definition of itself, hence why it's better for Europeans and others to focus on ethnicity.



So? People become seem to become white quick. It happens in one generation sometimes. One of the main reasons is because the Irish supplanted the "native" Anglos who failed to prevent their immigration en-masse to the Americas, and now they are being replaced in-turn by browns/Latins. Such is the fate of racial and ethnic groups in empires when they run out of blood-oil for grinding into the machine; their time in the sun ends.
Most people saw them as non-white? Well yeah, maybe. I'm not sure about it though. In most of US history only white men could become citizens. Since the Irish and Italian were able to become US American citizens before this law was lifted, the government saw them as white.

[Universe]

It seems to me like they were always seen as an inferior ethnicity based on their separation from Anglo-Saxon heritage.

Do you think that these Irish people are seen as whites at the time when they are described as being descended from Iberian-African mixes and pictured as such?

https://thomasnastcartoons.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/scientific_racism_irish-1899.jpg
Benjamin Franklin also believed only white people in Europe were English (+ maybe a single region in Germany) and he called Swedes and French people non-white, that's just an opinion, doesn't mean that most people agreed with him.
US government (democratically elected) didn't agree as they gave citizenship to Southern Europeans and to the Irish.

[Grace O'Malley]

I'm trying to understand why this stuff is constantly posted on here. People are obviously believing that people in the previous centuries couldn't differentiate between different populations. It's not like people have changed greatly in appearance in the last few centuries. If people believe populations like the Irish were seen as non-white then anyone could be seen as non-white because what criteria was used to assess racial categories? Yes there was discrimination against Europeans in the US but how does that translate to "the Irish were seen as non-white"?

Famine Irish.

https://images.musement.com/default/0057/57/thumb_5656038_default_header.jpeg?q=50&fit=crop&auto=format&w=1024&h=400

https://www.irishtimes.com/polopoly_fs/1.3295848.1510935850!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/ratio_4x3_w1200/image.jpg

I'm not expecting any answers on the topic because I've asked previously as people have been posting this stuff numerous times. It will be posted again because people will just accept that it is true without checking.

I can get older Census records than this but this is one I have already saved of a relative.

https://i.imgur.com/7mLuzlI.png

Here's one from 1870.

https://i.imgur.com/A4l9WkS.png

[Turul Karom]

That reminds me of a second Ben Franklin quote. "It must be true if it's on the internet."

This is 100% real. I posted a real quote written by Benjamin Franklin. Here is the source, the quote is from paragraph 24:

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-04-02-0080

[TheMaestro]

Yes people treat me better because I'm a tall wog.

[Turul Karom]

No they didn't. That's just what you want to be the case for some reason. They were officially considered White.

Benjamin Franklin was one man in the 18th century, he and his cohort of the US Founding Fathers legislated that immigration to the US be open to all 'white people', which was not restricted to British, or even NW Europeans. He's not even explicitly talking in modern 'racial' terms there, but in terms of complexion/colour.

Stick to your fantasies about Hungarian history, you know little about the history of the US/Britain, other than what leftist drivel you choose to imbibe.

I don't care if Irish are seen as white or not. It is obvious that by today's standards, Irish are considered white, and Italians are also. I have already said it. What I am saying is that people did not see them as white. On censuses today in the USA, people from Saudi Arabia are white. Do you think people on the street in the Anglosphere see them as such? Do you think the native Swedes think Africans born in Sweden are as Swedish as they are, even if the government says they are? It's always about the layman perspective.

Of course he was talking in racial contexts. They were the contexts of this time, and those contexts were that these people were not white. If you want to get upset about it, get upset at the people who wrote it (Benjamin Franklin) and their ilk, not people today for pointing out the irony. You're also ignoring the sources and quotes from the Italian article.

Also, I post nothing fantastical about Hungarian history, and I am not a leftist.


You are posting cartoons as evidence? There was a lot of bigotry against the Irish due to their Catholicism but racially they were still seen as white and Celts. The English at the time looked upon themselves as Anglo-Saxons and the pinnacle of human beings. Sure you will find a lot of derogatory illustrations but you have to look at things like legislation.

The following link is on the topic.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-british-studies/article/whiteness-of-ireland-under-and-after-the-union/0B84001EFDDD8B26BE5B931F6AD07108#fn74

What is the objective of people pushing this "Irish were seen as non-white"? I can understand that people want some solidarity in that the Irish could have sympathy with other people that were also colonised but what is the point that they were non-white?

This is at the beginning of the article I've linked.

So yes I agree they were seen as "inferior" in comparison to the English view of themselves but bigotry and discrimination doesn't mean they were seen as non-white. Other Europeans were also seen as inferior in Englishmen's eyes in that era.

They were off-white at best. It's clear that their otherness was apparent via public perception. It's not "cartoons as evidence" when you can just as easily see all of the Irish discrimination in employment, religious segregation, public and private writings, etc. Unless you think "No Irish Allowed" is no big deal or something. Also, you're ignoring the Italian issue, which is much of the same thing. Most of the people who say "Irish were not white" are not pushing for racial solidarity as much as they are trying to carve out racial exceptions for Irish people in the Anglosphere so that they can feel less obliged to be a part of the racial grievance industry that is constantly running strong in the West. Of course it will not be successful.

Again, the Irish prevailed in the end (for what it's worth) and replaced the Anglo-Saxons in many ways, and they are now being pressed in-turn. It is how the USA works because it is like an empire but without an emperor. It replaces races/ethnic groups as needed when they lose their relevance or a more politically advantageous one comes along.


Most people saw them as non-white? Well yeah, maybe. I'm not sure about it though. In most of US history only white men could become citizens. Since the Irish and Italian were able to become US American citizens before this law was lifted, the government saw them as white.

Yeah, hence the layman perspective.


Benjamin Franklin also believed only white people in Europe were English (+ maybe a single region in Germany) and he called Swedes and French people non-white, that's just an opinion, doesn't mean that most people agreed with him.
US government (democratically elected) didn't agree as they gave citizenship to Southern Europeans and to the Irish.

Sure, but it goes to show you how restrictive the term was in the eyes of many prominent people of the time. Hence, it's pointless to chase it. I promise that in 100 years, the definition will expand, and Mexicans and Arabs will be considered white, too, and people will have the same conversations about the next groups.

[Anglo-Celtic]

This is 100% real. I posted a real quote written by Benjamin Franklin. Here is the source, the quote is from paragraph 24:

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-04-02-0080

What can I say? Even wise people can say stupid things.

[Turul Karom]

What can I say? Even wise people can say stupid things.

Indeed, but the point is that even one of the most learned men of the era held this belief long after assuming the mantle of framing the government in the new United States. Ergo, from inception, the idea of "who is white" has only expanded outwards over time from what was an incredibly marginal definition, not become more exclusionary or remained anywhere close to the almost ethnic-based definition of Anglo-Saxon whiteness, and I believe that this is something that will continue as time progresses as history does not show us otherwise. The political ramifications for Europeans, Arabs, Indians, Latin Americans, etc, laymen and everyday persons of these groups are yet to be fully felt. This is historical fact, and has zero to do with being left or right wing but is an observation from which future trends and behaviors of everyday people can be better ascertained.

[Grace O'Malley]

Indeed, but the point is that even one of the most learned men of the era held this belief long after assuming the mantle of framing the government in the new United States. Ergo, from inception, the idea of "who is white" has only expanded outwards over time from what was an incredibly marginal definition, not become more exclusionary or remained anywhere close to the almost ethnic-based definition of Anglo-Saxon whiteness, and I believe that this is something that will continue as time progresses as history does not show us otherwise. The political ramifications for Europeans, Arabs, Indians, Latin Americans, etc, laymen and everyday persons of these groups are yet to be fully felt. This is historical fact, and has zero to do with being left or right wing but is an observation from which future trends and behaviors of everyday people can be better ascertained.

If Census results showing that the Irish were considered white is not good enough for you how do you explain this?


Another deterrent to Irish support of abolition may have been the United States Naturalization Law of 1790 that restricted naturalization to “free white persons” and of “good moral character”. The aspiring citizen pledged to support the Constitution of the United States. Therefore the Irish may have hesitated to support Abolition, seeing it as a threat to the Constitution.

Unfortunately, the Irish went beyond passive support of slavery: “It is a curious fact,” wrote John Finch, an English Owenite who travelled the United States in 1843, “that the democratic party, and particularly the poorer class of Irish immigrants in America, are greater enemies to the Negro population, and greater advocates for the continuance of Negro slavery, than any portion of the population in the free States.” In the Philadelphia riots of 1844 Irish mobs attacked African-Americans, their homes, businesses and churches, and at a political level they helped suppress debate over Abolition.


https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=31925

Legally the Irish were always considered white in the US which is why they could become naturalised Americans and many Irish became very successful.

JFK's grandfather Honey Fitz is an example of a successful Irish Catholic and another one of his contemporaries was Martin Lomasney.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Fitzgerald

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Lomasney

Also there is an Irish Catholic signatory to the Declaration of Independence along with some Protestant Irish. So were the Catholics considered non-white and the Irish Protestant not?

Charles Carroll was of Irish Catholic descent.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/signers-factsheet

You insist that the Irish weren't considered white but show no documentation or can cite no legislation to back this up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/22/sorry-but-the-irish-were-always-white-and-so-were-the-italians-jews-and-so-on/

You are conflating discrimination and a hierarchy of white groups with what happened to African-Americans and other non-white groups. Possibly your aim is to convince people that race doesn't exist as that was the point of Noel Ignatiev's book How The Irish Became White.


It was a tough read. It was a story of primarily Irish Catholic emigration before and after the potato famine - roughly 1840 to the Civil War - and that people's struggle to survive in this white, Protestant world. It's a sympathetic yet tragic story of how race has been a defining characteristic in U.S. culture and how the race question has also plagued the white working class in this country. One might say that it is a story of how the Irish exchanged their greenness for whiteness, and collaborated with the dominant white culture to continue the oppression of African Americans.

Ironically, Irish Catholics came to this country as an oppressed race yet quickly learned that to succeed they had to in turn oppress their closest social class competitors, free Northern blacks. Back home these "native Irish or papists" suffered something very similar to American slavery under English Penal Laws. Yet, despite their revolutionary roots as an oppressed group fighting for freedom and rights, and despite consistent pleas from the great Catholic emancipator, Daniel O'Connell, to support the abolitionists, the newly arrived Irish-Americans judged that the best way of gaining acceptance as good citizens and to counter the Nativist movement was to cooperate in the continued oppression of African Americans. Ironically, at the same time they were collaborating with the dominant culture to block abolition, they were garnering support from among Southern, slaveholding democrats for Repeal of the oppressive English Act of the Union back home. Some even convinced themselves that abolition was an English plot to weaken this country.

https://sites.pitt.edu/~hirtle/uujec/white.html

The Irish were discriminated against and yes they were oppressed but they were always legally "white". You appear to have problems understanding this?

Regarding Noel Ignatiev who started a lot of this off with his book How The Irish Became White.


Ignatiev viewed race distinctions and race itself as a social construct, not a scientific reality.[9][10]

Ignatiev's study of Irish immigrants in the 19th-century United States argued that an Irish triumph over nativism marks the incorporation of the Irish into the dominant group of American society. Ignatiev asserted that the Irish were not initially accepted as white by the dominant Anglo-American population. He claimed that only through their own violence against free blacks and support of slavery did the Irish gain acceptance as white. Ignatiev defined whiteness as the access to white privilege, which according to Ignatiev gains people perceived to have "white" skin admission to certain neighborhoods, schools, and jobs. In the 19th century, whiteness was strongly associated with political power, especially suffrage. Ignatiev's book on Irish immigrants has been criticized for "conflating race and economic position" and for ignoring data that contradicts his theses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noel_Ignatiev#cite_note-Arnesen2001-10


The essay critically examines historians’ use of W. E. B. Du Bois’s reflections on the “psychological wage”—something of a foundational text for whiteness scholars— and concludes that the “psychological wage” of whiteness serves poorly as a new explanation for the old question of why white workers have refused to make common cause with African Americans. Whiteness scholars’ assertions of the nonwhite status of various immigrant groups (the Irish and eastern and southern Europeans in particular) and the processes by which these groups allegedly became white are challenged, as is whiteness scholars’ tendency toward highly selective readings of racial discourses.


The rise of a genre of scholarship centering on white racial identity—on whiteness—has been one of the most dramatic and commented upon developments regarding race in the humanities and social sciences in recent years. “Research on whiteness has recently exploded onto the academic scene,” concludes communications scholar John T. Warren. “From a position of virtual invisibility only ten years ago,” geographer Peter Jackson observed in 1998, “studies of ‘whiteness’ have now become commonplace.” Whiteness has become “hip.”1 The new scholars of whiteness insist that race is not something that only nonwhites possess, but is a characteristic of whites as well, necessitating close scrutiny of whites’ race and racial identity and the very construction of race itself. In historian David Roediger’s words, “Making whiteness, rather than simply white racism, the focus of study” throws into “sharp relief” the ways that “whites think of themselves, of power, of pleasure, and of gender.”



For Karen Brodkin, whiteness is linked to job status. Jews became nonwhite only with the mass migration to the United States at the end of the nineteenth century, she argues. The “key to their nonwhite racial assignment” was their “performance” of work that was poorly paid, menial, and unpleasant. “[J]ob degradation and racial darkening were linked,” she contends: “In turn, degraded forms of work confirmed the apparent obviousness of the racial inferiority of the workers who did it.”27 Like Brodkin, Noel Ignatiev also conflates race and economic position when he writes that at “every period . .
the ‘white race’ has included only groups that did ‘white man’s work,’” which was “work from which Afro-Americans were excluded.”28 The variety of definitions found in this diverse scholarship reveals the concept of whiteness to be sufficiently elastic as to resist any effort to give it formal or permanent shape. Or, to mix metaphors, it is a blank screen onto which those who claim to analyze it can project their own meanings.


” In aspiring to the “withering away of whiteness,” Roediger finds comfort in white youth’s appreciation of hiphop music, which, he claims, offers them “spontaneity, experimentation, humor, danger, sexuality, physical movement and rebellion absent from what passes as white culture” as well as an “explicitly, often harsh, critique of whiteness.”31 Noel Ignatiev and John Garvey’s journal, Race Traitor, purports to serve “as an intellectual center for those seeking to abolish the white race.” The journal’s motto puts their goals bluntly: “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.”32 These writers, some of whom view themselves as the “new abolitionists,” leave little to the imagination in declaring their political aspirations. To those skeptical of a politics they see as defined by the voluntary mass relinquishing of privilege and identity, envisioning the withering away of whiteness requires nothing but imagination.


How useful is the “public and psychological wage” as an explanation for white workers’ refusal to make common cause with African Americans in the workplace and embrace blacks as an integral part of the working class and labor movement? Only if one accepts, as do many of the historians of whiteness, the “theory of laboring class unity” or, in Bruce Nelson’s words, the “logic of solidarity,” does the failure of white workers to recognize their common interests with blacks, their creation of a labor movement that excludes people of color, and their own embrace of white racial privileges require explanation. For Nelson, race—and whiteness in particular—calls into question the fundamental “belief in the emergent reality of one working class, with a natural affinity toward solidarity and the capacity to develop a unified consciousness as a weapon of struggle.”

This is a long document but examines the topic in detail including the Irish and later European immigrants.

https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/4182016/mod_resource/content/1/1.%20Arneson%20original%20on%20whiteness.pdf

[Grace O'Malley]

This narrative that some European groups were not considered white all starts in the 1990s with "Whiteness Studies".


Did some non-Anglo-Saxon European immigrant groups such as the Irish, Italians, and Jews really become white in historical America? We argue that the answer to this question is contingent upon how becoming white is defined. If becoming white refers to change in the official racial classification of these groups, it has never happened. However, if becoming white means change in social status from a minority group to part of the majority or dominant group, that had definitely transpired. The purpose of this paper is to revisit the “becoming white thesis” and to provide evidence to support our argument.


Race is a legal construction (Honey Lopez 1996), and official racial classifications largely, albeit imperfectly, reflect and shape popular racial categorizations. Hence, it is essential and important to examine how whiteness is legally or officially constructed by U.S. social institutions. We found no evidence from U.S. censuses, naturalization legislation, and court cases that the racial categorization of some non-Anglo-Saxon European immigrant groups such as the Irish, Italians, and Jews changed to white. They were legally white and always white, and there was no need for them to switch to white.



Naturalization legislation provides another important source that substantiates no need for non-Anglo-Saxon European groups to become white as they were always eligible for U.S. citizenship. As is well known, nonwhite minorities were made ineligible for naturalization and gradually gained their right for U.S. citizenship in historical America. People of African descent were ineligible for U.S. citizenship until the Naturalization Act of 1870 based on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution granted them the right for citizenship. Native Americans were not eligible for U.S. citizenship until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Chinese immigrants were deprived of citizenship right until 1943 when all Chinese exclusions laws were repealed. Indian and Filipino immigrants were ineligible for U.S. citizenship until the Luce-Celler Act of 1946 was passed. Japanese immigrants did not gain their citizenship right until 1952. However, none of the European groups has ever been excluded from U.S. citizenship because they were always considered “free white persons.”


Our findings help resolve the controversy over whether certain U.S. nonAnglo-Saxon European immigrant groups became white in historical America. Our analysis suggests that “becoming white” carries different meanings: change in racial classification, and change in majority/minority status. In terms of the former, “becoming white” for non-Anglo-Saxon European immigrant groups is bogus. Hence, the argument of Eric Arnesen (2001), Aldoph Reed (2001), Barbara Fields (2001), and Thomas Guglielmo (2003) that the Irish, Italians, and Jews were white on arrival in America is vindicated.

https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=jpps

[Turul Karom]

Well, you posted a lot to read, but I read it all and it looks like there is some fundamental misunderstanding of even the points I am trying to make.


If Census results showing that the Irish were considered white is not good enough for you how do you explain this?

https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=31925

Legally the Irish were always considered white in the US which is why they could become naturalised Americans and many Irish became very successful.

JFK's grandfather Honey Fitz is an example of a successful Irish Catholic and another one of his contemporaries was Martin Lomasney.

The success of Irish people in the USA has little to do with the fact that they still face discrimination based around their non-Anglo ancestry. The laymen of the time (including many of the founders) would not see them as white. As I have already said in this thread, Arabs are legally "white" on papers. Do you think that laymen in the Anglosphere or even many Arabs living in it call themselves white, or feel white, etc? It's the exact same concept with the Irish in the 1800s. They are "legally" white, but in practice and daily experience, they are not given the same ease of passage in daily life. Certainly not as hard as a black person during the era, but nothing like an Anglo-American, who they eventually replaced anyway en-masse.



Also there is an Irish Catholic signatory to the Declaration of Independence along with some Protestant Irish. So were the Catholics considered non-white and the Irish Protestant not?

Charles Carroll was of Irish Catholic descent.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/signers-factsheet

I mentioned nothing about the Catholic faith in particular being the reason for them being seen as non-white. You're asking me a rhetorical question that I never alluded to at any point. The only thing that ever did negatively for the Irish is make them seem more like foreign agents of the Papal States to people who harbored anti-Catholic sentiments.


You insist that the Irish weren't considered white but show no documentation or can cite no legislation to back this up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/22/sorry-but-the-irish-were-always-white-and-so-were-the-italians-jews-and-so-on/

Again, do you think Arabs are white? Do you think that Hindus in the USA who had their citizenship decided at Supreme Court levels in favor of being Caucasian were seen as such by the "white" Americans of the time? Legislation in regards to the Irish was meaningless when apparently people could discriminate against them at will and state actors would do little to prevent it as if they were regular white-Anglos. It's clear that people saw the Irish as undesirable for far more than their Catholic faith on racial grounds.


You are conflating discrimination and a hierarchy of white groups with what happened to African-Americans and other non-white groups. Possibly your aim is to convince people that race doesn't exist as that was the point of Noel Ignatiev's book How The Irish Became White.

https://sites.pitt.edu/~hirtle/uujec/white.html

I have never said anything like this. I don't see how talking about the expanding public acceptance of whiteness somehow invalidates the concept of racial groups, a concept which is always in flux anyway. It's a weird accusation.

What you fail to understand is that it never matters if people are legally christened as white or not. It's all about public perception and practical perception during times of crisis and other issues relating to diving up resources. This is further compounded as an issue if state actors, regardless of their legal scope, decide to do nothing to help the aggrieved party that has been made the "other." How could this be seen as anything else than "othering" that's also implicitly accepted by the state? A practical exercise: you try selling John Smith that Muhammad Muhammad who just moved in next door is as white as him because of what it says on a census.

This is the same thing that happened to Hungary after WW1, and Hungarians were certainly considered white at this time for US immigration, but during Trianon one of the major issues was the other-ness because it is a game you cannot win if public perception is willing to accept you as an "other." Not so much in regards to whiteness in the Trianon case as much as it was "European-ness," though the concept of whiteness is now generally synonymous with it which is why Hungary is bashed in the current century as "too white" by many EU losers.

[Grace O'Malley]

Well, you posted a lot to read, but I read it all and it looks like there is some fundamental misunderstanding of even the points I am trying to make.



The success of Irish people in the USA has little to do with the fact that they still face discrimination based around their non-Anglo ancestry. The laymen of the time (including many of the founders) would not see them as white. As I have already said in this thread, Arabs are legally "white" on papers. Do you think that laymen in the Anglosphere or even many Arabs living in it call themselves white, or feel white, etc? It's the exact same concept with the Irish in the 1800s. They are "legally" white, but in practice and daily experience, they are not given the same ease of passage in daily life. Certainly not as hard as a black person during the era, but nothing like an Anglo-American, who they eventually replaced anyway en-masse.




I mentioned nothing about the Catholic faith in particular being the reason for them being seen as non-white. You're asking me a rhetorical question that I never alluded to at any point. The only thing that ever did negatively for the Irish is make them seem more like foreign agents of the Papal States to people who harbored anti-Catholic sentiments.



Again, do you think Arabs are white? Do you think that Hindus in the USA who had their citizenship decided at Supreme Court levels in favor of being Caucasian were seen as such by the "white" Americans of the time? Legislation in regards to the Irish was meaningless when apparently people could discriminate against them at will and state actors would do little to prevent it as if they were regular white-Anglos. It's clear that people saw the Irish as undesirable for far more than their Catholic faith on racial grounds.



I have never said anything like this. I don't see how talking about the expanding public acceptance of whiteness somehow invalidates the concept of racial groups, a concept which is always in flux anyway. It's a weird accusation.

What you fail to understand is that it never matters if people are legally christened as white or not. It's all about public perception and practical perception during times of crisis and other issues relating to diving up resources. This is further compounded as an issue if state actors, regardless of their legal scope, decide to do nothing to help the aggrieved party that has been made the "other." How could this be seen as anything else than "othering" that's also implicitly accepted by the state? A practical exercise: you try selling John Smith that Muhammad Muhammad who just moved in next door is as white as him because of what it says on a census.

This is the same thing that happened to Hungary after WW1, and Hungarians were certainly considered white at this time for US immigration, but during Trianon one of the major issues was the other-ness because it is a game you cannot win if public perception is willing to accept you as an "other." Not so much in regards to whiteness in the Trianon case as much as it was "European-ness," though the concept of whiteness is now generally synonymous with it which is why Hungary is bashed in the current century as "too white" by many EU losers.

You originally posted that people like the Irish and Italians were seen as non-white. I have said that they were always viewed as white as can be proven by Census records and legislation. You are going around in circles. All groups faced prejudice as has been stated in the links I've put in including Eastern Europeans but legally they were always white. You bring up "public perception" without linking anything that can be discussed. You are speaking about your opinions and not giving any valid documentation to support what you are saying. I've pointed out that different Europeans groups faced discrimination on arrival in the US but legally they were white. No one is denying the bigotry that people faced. Of course it matters if people are legally "white" as that gave them rights. It is why Irish in a few generations became part of the majority and then other European groups were seen as "the other". The fact that they could become successful through joining political parties like the Irish did the Democrats is because they legally were seen as white. As I've pointed out groups like the Irish and other European groups were never legislated against in that they never changed their race i.e. becoming "white" as they were always "white" legally. How did they become "white" then if they were "not white"? Are successful African-Americans now viewed as "white"?

You do not understand the story of the Irish if you do not acknowledge that their Catholic faith set them apart in the US. There was Protestant Irish and Catholic Irish that went to the US. It was the Catholic Irish that faced discrimination. You aren't acknowledging this because Protestant Irish could be part of the "Anglo club" and how could that be if the Irish were not seen as white?

[Anglo-Celtic]

You originally posted that people like the Irish and Italians were seen as non-white. I have said that they were always viewed as white as can be proven by Census records and legislation. You are going around in circles. All groups faced prejudice as has been stated in the links I've put in including Eastern Europeans but legally they were always white. You bring up "public perception" without linking anything that can be discussed. You are speaking about your opinions and not giving any valid documentation to support what you are saying. I've pointed out that different Europeans groups faced discrimination on arrival in the US but legally they were white. No one is denying the bigotry that people faced. Of course it matters if people are legally "white" as that gave them rights. It is why Irish in a few generations became part of the majority and then other European groups were seen as "the other". The fact that they could become successful through joining political parties like the Irish did the Democrats is because they legally were seen as white. As I've pointed out groups like the Irish and other European groups were never legislated against in that they never changed their race i.e. becoming "white" as they were always "white" legally. How did they become "white" then if they were "not white"? Are successful African-Americans now viewed as "white"?

You do not understand the story of the Irish if you do not acknowledge that their Catholic faith set them apart in the US. There was Protestant Irish and Catholic Irish that went to the US. It was the Catholic Irish that faced discrimination. You aren't acknowledging this because Protestant Irish could be part of the "Anglo club" and how could that be if the Irish were not seen as white?

He might mean "White" in a symbolic, rather than literal, sense. They're categorized and labelled as White in the racial sense but not in the social sense. I *think* that's what he means. He can correct me if I'm wrong.

He loses both me and you when he claims that *all* Irish were seen as the other. In most instances, it had to do with class (like the Scots-Irish in some towns in the 1700s) or religion (like Catholics from Ireland). 1950s Appalachians were treated a bit like 1840s Irish in some places, so there's still a thing against poor, rural people, and that might go back to ancient times. As for White, my ancestors from Ireland, who converted to Protestantism, seamlessly fit in with everyone else in their area.

[Creoda]

He might mean "White" in a symbolic, rather than literal, sense. They're categorized and labelled as White in the racial sense but not in the social sense. I *think* that's what he means. He can correct me if I'm wrong.

There was no such distinction though, certainly not for Irish. They've managed to manipulate the historical truth that Irish Catholics were not part of the national 'in-group' in the US (so called WASPs, another historically manipulative term), and turn it into the lie that Irish were therefore not considered 'White', based on the same few cartoons every time. And they've taught this in Universities across the West now for decades, and countless millions of people now believe it, it is mainstream.

Funny how there's never any suggestion that Irish weren't considered White in Australia. Apparently we had a completely different racial concept/system to the British and Americans :rolleyes:

[Anglo-Celtic]

There was no such distinction though, certainly not for Irish. They've managed to manipulate the historical truth that Irish Catholics were not part of the national 'in-group' in the US (so called WASPs, another historically manipulative term), and turn it into the lie that Irish were therefore not considered 'White', based on the same few cartoons every time. And they've taught this in Universities across the West now for decades, and countless millions of people now believe it, it is mainstream.

Funny how there's never any suggestion that Irish weren't considered White in Australia. Apparently we had a completely different racial concept/system to the British and Americans :rolleyes:

Why do you think I brought up class and religion? My whole point was that it *wasn't* about race. They just use "White" as shorthand for acceptable groups. You should direct your comment to our Hungarian friend.

[Creoda]

Why do you think I brought up class and religion? My whole point was that it *wasn't* about race. They just use "White" as shorthand for acceptable groups. You should direct your comment to our Hungarian friend.
Well I wasn't saying you agreed with it, you've made it clear that you don't. Just responding to the distinction you brought up, as what they believe.

[Anglo-Celtic]

Well I wasn't saying you agreed with it, you've made it clear that you don't. Just responding to the distinction you brought up, as what they believe.

It all makes sense now. I was afraid that I posted gobbledygook. ;-)

[Grace O'Malley]

He might mean "White" in a symbolic, rather than literal, sense. They're categorized and labelled as White in the racial sense but not in the social sense. I *think* that's what he means. He can correct me if I'm wrong.

He loses both me and you when he claims that *all* Irish were seen as the other. In most instances, it had to do with class (like the Scots-Irish in some towns in the 1700s) or religion (like Catholics from Ireland). 1950s Appalachians were treated a bit like 1840s Irish in some places, so there's still a thing against poor, rural people, and that might go back to ancient times. As for White, my ancestors from Ireland, who converted to Protestantism, seamlessly fit in with everyone else in their area.

That's what I was saying in my replies. That "Whiteness" studies conflates race with social status. People literally think that people like the Irish were viewed as non-white racially which shows how gullible people are. Like they think that people a few centuries ago couldn't tell the difference between someone who was Irish and someone who was African or tell a Chinese person from an Italian. Being white racially doesn't mean you didn't suffer discrimination you have to be "non-white" to be discriminated against according to these history revisionists. :picard2:

[Lemminkäinen]

The United States vigilante mobs lynched Italians and Irish, too. You are wrong about the idea of what it even means to be "white" in this context. Any in-group eventually fights itself anyway without sustained outside pressure to ensure cohesion. It's part of the nature of humanity.

People who are so-called white passing are people who are indeed functionally white. This is something you are right about. However, the problems come when, in an all-white environment, if the white-passing kind have historical grudges against other whites. The classic example is Turks. You will be hard pressed for someone to call a Turk white if there's incentive to other them (despite the fact that some ethnic Turks look whiter than some Europeans). This is because for most of Western lore, Turks played the role of the antagonist (Crusades, Ottomans, etc.) Only recently post-WW1 and reform have they become "whiter" in the eyes of the world.

POC will never accept them as part of the Coalition of Color because they look too white. Hence, they exist in a limbo until society shifts for one reason or another. If anything, they would be easier accepted into white society than other society. The conflict comes where other whites rally around their shared national causes, but then the "other white" speaks up about theirs and it becomes historically awkward for them. This is present in many cases. If you want to see how whiteness of Turks fluctuated, look at the posters used during the Russo-Turkish wars (where Turks are shown almost as dark as Indians) vs how Turks are presented as allies and as full members of the Central Powers during WW1. Here are some Central Powers examples:

https://i.ibb.co/sqtMXQh/ww1-central-powers-1.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)
https://i.ibb.co/C74nH1L/ww1-turkish-soldier.jpg (https://ibb.co/4TCjVmk)
https://i.ibb.co/JB2gcvx/Balkanzug-karte-01.jpg (https://ibb.co/smQzgK5)

Many American andropologists seem to think that near-easterners belobg to whites. In their obvious viewpoint there is a seamless continuum from Near East to South Europe and vice versa. This is not true in Europe, but in America these theories have applied meanings. Opinions change depending on whatever sounds beneficial. Turks are seen in a historical context and as old enemies and this idea was transfered to America. Today Iraqi and Syrians probably have turned out to be less white.

[Grace O'Malley]

There was no such distinction though, certainly not for Irish. They've managed to manipulate the historical truth that Irish Catholics were not part of the national 'in-group' in the US (so called WASPs, another historically manipulative term), and turn it into the lie that Irish were therefore not considered 'White', based on the same few cartoons every time. And they've taught this in Universities across the West now for decades, and countless millions of people now believe it, it is mainstream.

Funny how there's never any suggestion that Irish weren't considered White in Australia. Apparently we had a completely different racial concept/system to the British and Americans :rolleyes:

Even though it wasn't a major destination for Irish many also went to South Africa. You know the country that had apartheid? Why were Irish not seen as non-white there? Also all the Irish that served in the British forces that went to India.

Would Honey Fitz have been viewed as non-white?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/J._F._Fitzgerald.jpg

No but he was an Irish Catholic and even in 1960 when JFK was elected President there was a lot of anti-Catholicism. It's just annoying that people are willing to swallow all the revisionist claptrap and even when it is shown that legally groups like Irish, Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans were always "white" people will argue the semantics of it. People just throwing logic out the window!

So logically if people like the Irish "became white" what is stopping African Americans becoming white? If you believe that it was racial and not class what happened?

[BeSustainable5903]

In the US, in the current political climate, being a white male is actually somewhat of a disadvantage. A white person expressing political/social views that are contrary to your mainstream "liberal" positions invites accusations of being a white supremacist/nativist/racist/pick your slur, irrespective of the rationality and logic of the opinions expressed. This has severe repercussions on careers and social equations sometimes, as unfair as it is. For example, if you are a white dude and express your reservations about unmitigated illegal immigration, chances are you will be branded as a racist.

As a non white person, I can and have gotten away with expressing similar views without any social penalties. I can rail against the influx of illegal aliens without being branded or labeled. White people have to watch themselves very carefully while discussing sensitive topics, given the potential cost of being categorised.

I call it "non white" privilege,��

[Grace O'Malley]

How did a character like Scarlett O'Hara ever make it to print if the Irish were seen as non white?

https://www.memesmonkey.com/images/memesmonkey/28/28dc17e40abaa0e0e1bd89adbd2299cc.jpeg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c1/d8/7e/c1d87eb8f0c25c312f92c0b1619c26c7.jpg

[BeSustainable5903]

I believe discrimination against the Irish was due to most of them being Catholics. The KKK used to go after Catholics, although not to the extent of blacks.

To fully "fit in" into their perceived image of a "true" American, you had to be white AND a practicing Protestant.

[Grace O'Malley]

I believe discrimination against the Irish was due to most of them being Catholics. The KKK used to go after Catholics, although not to the extent of blacks.

To fully "fit in" into their perceived image of a "true" American, you had to be white AND a practicing Protestant.

It was the waves of famine era Irish that came to the US that sparked the resentment. They were poor, Catholic and while many Irish were bi-lingual in that they could also speak Irish so all these things set them apart from earlier migrants. The Irish Catholics that came earlier were much less in number. Irish Protestants were part of the original group that came to the US and when the masses of Irish Catholics started coming that's when the Scots-Irish name came into vogue to separate them from the Catholic Irish. One of the most famous outlaws Billy The Kid was the son of Irish Catholics. I have family members that were part of this group and they merged into the US mainstream very quickly. One thing about the Irish especially in that era was that they supported each other and of course the Catholic Church was very supportive as most of the priests and Church hierarchy were Irish.

The Irish weren't the only group that faced discrimination but they were the first non-Protestant group that came in very large numbers.

This is an interesting article about two Irish Catholic priests on two opposite sides in the American Civil War.

https://www.americamagazine.org/content/all-things/two-irish-immigrant-churchmen-who-fought-american-civil-war

[Blondie]

The good old days when germans were huns :rotfl:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EWoDW4gWAAAug4o.jpg

https://digital.library.temple.edu/digital/api/singleitem/image/p16002coll9/2923/default.jpg

[BeSustainable5903]

Very interesting read, thank you. Catholics were definitely discriminated against in the US. The Catholic Irish were just as white as any other European people, but their religion made them a target.

[Turul Karom]

The good old days when germans were huns :rotfl:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EWoDW4gWAAAug4o.jpg

https://digital.library.temple.edu/digital/api/singleitem/image/p16002coll9/2923/default.jpg

1) Germans were called "Huns" in WW1 because of Kaiser Wilhelm II's speech in earlier years about the German military in the Far East:

“Should you encounter the enemy, he will be defeated! No quarter will be given! Prisoners will not be taken! Whoever falls into your hands is forfeited. Just as a thousand years ago the Huns under their King Attila made a name for themselves, one that even today makes them seem mighty in history and legend, may the name German be affirmed by you in such a way in China that no Chinese will ever again dare to look cross-eyed at a German.”

It was to mock them about their perceived barbarism and the Kaiser's "tough guy" attitude. It wasn't the Allies calling the Germans literally Huns.

2) Ironically, the historical Huns were very Germanic after entering Europe and intermarried with many Germans, including Attila himself who sought a Germanic wife.

[Turul Karom]

You originally posted that people like the Irish and Italians were seen as non-white. I have said that they were always viewed as white as can be proven by Census records and legislation. You are going around in circles. All groups faced prejudice as has been stated in the links I've put in including Eastern Europeans but legally they were always white. You bring up "public perception" without linking anything that can be discussed.

I linked an academic paper about the subject (Italians specifically) with quotes from major outlets at the time. The census is meaningless. The citizenship is meaningless. Irish were another group to pander to, arriving in the United States in boats in large groups that were just another voting group that expanded rapidly. It's your choice if you want to ignore it as a fact that a large part of the Irish story was overcoming Anglo prejudice and othering via displacement; it wasn't all about integration alone.


I've pointed out that different Europeans groups faced discrimination on arrival in the US but legally they were white. No one is denying the bigotry that people faced. Of course it matters if people are legally "white" as that gave them rights. It is why Irish in a few generations became part of the majority and then other European groups were seen as "the other". The fact that they could become successful through joining political parties like the Irish did the Democrats is because they legally were seen as white. As I've pointed out groups like the Irish and other European groups were never legislated against in that they never changed their race i.e. becoming "white" as they were always "white" legally. How did they become "white" then if they were "not white"? Are successful African-Americans now viewed as "white"?

LOL Why yes, actually, there was a black girl who was called "honorary white" because she became wildly wealthy due to oil on her property. Her name was Sarah Rector. She was declared "white" by the state of Oklahoma because of her wealth. She received tons of letters for marriage proposals from white men because they wanted her money, and certainly did not care about her looks at that time with millions of dollars on the table. Obviously today, Africans can have more success and equality under the law, so such things are less necessary (official racial declarations for access to first-class citizen rights).


https://i.ibb.co/FgH7hdB/Sarah-Rector.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)
https://i.ibb.co/BK4VfPG/Screenshot-2022-01-12-at-11-43-58-Remembering-Sarah-Rector-Creek-Freedwoman.png (https://ibb.co/bRHg63F)
https://i.ibb.co/jhYFRXg/Article-on-Sarah-Rector.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)



You do not understand the story of the Irish if you do not acknowledge that their Catholic faith set them apart in the US. There was Protestant Irish and Catholic Irish that went to the US. It was the Catholic Irish that faced discrimination. You aren't acknowledging this because Protestant Irish could be part of the "Anglo club" and how could that be if the Irish were not seen as white?

I never said they couldn't. Especially if they had a non-Irish stereotypical faith (Catholic), some money, and didn't have Catholic sympathies, I'd bet that it was far easier for them to be absorbed, even moreso if they were a woman. Still, it doesn't matter because the story of the Irish involves the displacement of the legacy Anglos, which is the real reason why they're fine today. They overcame the Anglos over time. It has far less to do with assimilation rather than claiming the mantle for themselves in large swathes of the USA. If it bothers you, I have already said that people today (including myself) see the Irish as white anyway. What I'm saying is, even if people balk at it, I believe the definition will expand further still over time in the eyes of everyday people as to who is white, and no, I don't think the average African will ever see that.


He might mean "White" in a symbolic, rather than literal, sense. They're categorized and labelled as White in the racial sense but not in the social sense. I *think* that's what he means. He can correct me if I'm wrong.

Thank you. Just as being white has always been, more or less, a categorization of convenience. I even explained how it expanded to include previously off-white groups who were othered (like the Italians) after they, along with the Irish and other Europeans, replaced the Anglo-Saxons en-masse, making the Ben Franklin line of "white" thought impossible and irrelevant.


He loses both me and you when he claims that *all* Irish were seen as the other.

No, I am saying it as a default. I am sure there are circumstances where people could not tell someone was of Irish ancestry, like if they lost their accent and changed their name, and so there would be zero risk to them being othered, especially if they were protestants.


There was no such distinction though, certainly not for Irish. They've managed to manipulate the historical truth that Irish Catholics were not part of the national 'in-group' in the US (so called WASPs, another historically manipulative term), and turn it into the lie that Irish were therefore not considered 'White', based on the same few cartoons every time. And they've taught this in Universities across the West now for decades, and countless millions of people now believe it, it is mainstream.

Funny how there's never any suggestion that Irish weren't considered White in Australia. Apparently we had a completely different racial concept/system to the British and Americans :rolleyes:

Why would England listen? Your nation had baggage in the Anglosphere because in England it was seen as a penal colony full of people generally below the British because Australians were seen as descendants of criminals and other unwanted types. This seemed to finally be overcome after WW2, but reading about WW1 and the writings of Australians and their experience in England shows that England still had a lot of distaste for Australians in many sectors. Do you think that the British or the Americans would care about much coming from Australia during the 1800s with charity? It doesn't mean Australians weren't white, either.

Again, Irish became a seamless part of the "in group" because they displaced Anglos in so many areas of the country and became an integral part of the American Empire, its electorate, and its economic system that it was a matter of time until they were another cog in the machine in general that nobody could dislodge.

[Creoda]

You say you're not a leftist but you write just like one. 'Othering' :puke


Why would England listen? Your nation had baggage in the Anglosphere because in England it was seen as a penal colony full of people generally below the British because Australians were seen as descendants of criminals and other unwanted types. This seemed to finally be overcome after WW2, but reading about WW1 and the writings of Australians and their experience in England shows that England still had a lot of distaste for Australians in many sectors. Do you think that the British or the Americans would care about much coming from Australia during the 1800s with charity? It doesn't mean Australians weren't white, either.

Again, Irish became a seamless part of the "in group" because they displaced Anglos in so many areas of the country and became an integral part of the American Empire, its electorate, and its economic system that it was a matter of time until they were another cog in the machine in general that nobody could dislodge.
Australia was not a nation in the 19th century, it was a set of British colonies, and the majority of Australian colonials were either migrants from the United Kingdom, or sons/daughters of UK migrants. Australia was basically a recent transplant of British society. So the idea that Irish were unquestionably White in Australia, as they were, but not in the United Kingdom, is ridiculous.

I have no idea what tangent you're going off on about Americans/British listening to Australians, my point was that Anglo-Australians followed the cultural norms of Britain. If Irish were considered non-white in Britain they would have been here too, but as it happened Irish were integrated in Anglo-Australian society and part of the power structure from early on.

Irish didn't become a 'seamless part of the in-group' in America btw. That's why they're still hyphenated-Americans, like Italians. Completely irrelevant to Whiteness though.

[Turul Karom]

You say you're not a leftist but you write just like one. 'Othering' :puke

"Othering" is a good term to describe generic ways people try to cause divides between others. I don't think it's as politically partisan as "proletarian," "unpacking the knapsack," etc. There's no reason to imply I'm being a crypto-leftist; this is all a casual talk anyway.


Australia was not a nation in the 19th century, it was a set of British colonies, and the majority of Australian colonials were either migrants from the United Kingdom, or sons/daughters of UK migrants. Australia was basically a recent transplant of British society. So the idea that Irish were unquestionably White in Australia, as they were, but not in the United Kingdom, is ridiculous.

I never applied anything about Australia to anything that I talked about earlier besides Australia being a penal colony of England.


I have no idea what tangent you're going off on about Americans/British listening to Australians, my point was that Anglo-Australians followed the cultural norms of Britain. If Irish were considered non-white in Britain they would have been here too, but as it happened Irish were integrated in Anglo-Australian society and part of the power structure from early on.

Irish didn't become a 'seamless part of the in-group' in America btw. That's why they're still hyphenated-Americans, like Italians. Completely irrelevant to Whiteness though.

Everyone in the USA is a hyphenated-American now because the only legacy Americans from an ethnic sense would be those who rebelled and founded the United States in its original form, which are going to be predominantly Anglo-Saxons by a massive margin. These people have been either so extensively mixed with successive waves of immigrants (or totally displaced) to the extent that they are irrelevant politically outside of what are probably very small enclaves. Australia will be no different.

[Sarin]

If they've been treated better for their fair skin, to the hindrance of the others, then isn't that the definition of white privilege?

If these white-passing people walk abroad, virtually everyone will assume they're white. People will treat them better due to their fair skin.

If you have fair skin and Caucasoid features, you're WHITE, and you benefit from white privilege.

The chief privilege back here , at the end of the day , is nothing but money privilege only . They scan you from top to bottom , the clothes you wear the vehicle you drive the house you live (& likewise indicators of your status) and then you get treated accordingly for eg. this white guy (https://starsunfolded.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/An-old-picture-of-Karl-Rock.jpg) who they concluded as a mediocre backpacker.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSqMkjuitzc[

Regardless Nordic or Negro , Punjabi or Tamil , you can get a royal treatment at Umaid Palace (https://www.kayak.com/rimg/himg/e1/31/f8/leonardo-1124409-Baradari_Dining_O-762078.jpg?width=1366&height=768&crop=true) or a second rate one at Paharganj (http://sungrammata.com/wp-content/uploads/paharganj-1500x1000.jpg) (backpackers ghetto) . Choice is yours , after all the whole thing is that..... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9plTgGxTTIw) (https://www.filmyquotes.com/songs/3688)

[Grace O'Malley]

I linked an academic paper about the subject (Italians specifically) with quotes from major outlets at the time. The census is meaningless. The citizenship is meaningless. Irish were another group to pander to, arriving in the United States in boats in large groups that were just another voting group that expanded rapidly. It's your choice if you want to ignore it as a fact that a large part of the Irish story was overcoming Anglo prejudice and othering via displacement; it wasn't all about integration alone.



LOL Why yes, actually, there was a black girl who was called "honorary white" because she became wildly wealthy due to oil on her property. Her name was Sarah Rector. She was declared "white" by the state of Oklahoma because of her wealth. She received tons of letters for marriage proposals from white men because they wanted her money, and certainly did not care about her looks at that time with millions of dollars on the table. Obviously today, Africans can have more success and equality under the law, so such things are less necessary (official racial declarations for access to first-class citizen rights).


https://i.ibb.co/FgH7hdB/Sarah-Rector.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)
https://i.ibb.co/BK4VfPG/Screenshot-2022-01-12-at-11-43-58-Remembering-Sarah-Rector-Creek-Freedwoman.png (https://ibb.co/bRHg63F)
https://i.ibb.co/jhYFRXg/Article-on-Sarah-Rector.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)




I never said they couldn't. Especially if they had a non-Irish stereotypical faith (Catholic), some money, and didn't have Catholic sympathies, I'd bet that it was far easier for them to be absorbed, even moreso if they were a woman. Still, it doesn't matter because the story of the Irish involves the displacement of the legacy Anglos, which is the real reason why they're fine today. They overcame the Anglos over time. It has far less to do with assimilation rather than claiming the mantle for themselves in large swathes of the USA. If it bothers you, I have already said that people today (including myself) see the Irish as white anyway. What I'm saying is, even if people balk at it, I believe the definition will expand further still over time in the eyes of everyday people as to who is white, and no, I don't think the average African will ever see that.



Thank you. Just as being white has always been, more or less, a categorization of convenience. I even explained how it expanded to include previously off-white groups who were othered (like the Italians) after they, along with the Irish and other Europeans, replaced the Anglo-Saxons en-masse, making the Ben Franklin line of "white" thought impossible and irrelevant.



No, I am saying it as a default. I am sure there are circumstances where people could not tell someone was of Irish ancestry, like if they lost their accent and changed their name, and so there would be zero risk to them being othered, especially if they were protestants.



Why would England listen? Your nation had baggage in the Anglosphere because in England it was seen as a penal colony full of people generally below the British because Australians were seen as descendants of criminals and other unwanted types. This seemed to finally be overcome after WW2, but reading about WW1 and the writings of Australians and their experience in England shows that England still had a lot of distaste for Australians in many sectors. Do you think that the British or the Americans would care about much coming from Australia during the 1800s with charity? It doesn't mean Australians weren't white, either.

Again, Irish became a seamless part of the "in group" because they displaced Anglos in so many areas of the country and became an integral part of the American Empire, its electorate, and its economic system that it was a matter of time until they were another cog in the machine in general that nobody could dislodge.

You're still conflating discrimination with being "non-white". Any articles on "White Skinned Irish Made White?" :) No one is denying that there was bigotry but saying they were non-white is what I'm telling you is not accurate. They didn't change race. :picard2: You're claims are bogus.

[Turul Karom]

You're still conflating discrimination with being "non-white". Any articles on "White Skinned Irish Made White?" :) No one is denying that there was bigotry but saying they were non-white is what I'm telling you is not accurate. They didn't change race. :picard2: You're claims are bogus.

I think you're missing the point about the entire ordeal considering it was the Irish themselves that reported much of their abuse. The very fact you need to talk about "passing" Protestant Irish people insofar as how well they can blend into Anglo-Saxonhood is evidence for itself. I'm sure that the Irishmen took little comfort that they were white on the census when they got their teeth knocked out, called a "Dirty Mick," and thrown into the back of a "Paddy Wagon." You even argued for the Italians, who had it worse in some ways given Southern Italy's closeness to North Africa and the anxiety that caused people, that Italians were also seen just as white because, well, "look at the census!" Meaningless when everyday people panicked about their mafiosi stereotype and African admixture which would smuggle into their communities via the one-drop rule. Does this sound like people who were treated very white without need for scrutiny? Ben Franklin certainly didn't think so, either.

It doesn't even matter today since both groups are considered white by nearly everyone but the most ardent Nordicists or fantastical "we wuz" ilk who say Sicilians and Romans are whitewashed blacks. Both Italians and Irish have also displaced the legacy Anglos or have absorbed them far more rather than the reverse.

[Anglo-Celtic]

In the US, in the current political climate, being a white male is actually somewhat of a disadvantage. A white person expressing political/social views that are contrary to your mainstream "liberal" positions invites accusations of being a white supremacist/nativist/racist/pick your slur, irrespective of the rationality and logic of the opinions expressed. This has severe repercussions on careers and social equations sometimes, as unfair as it is. For example, if you are a white dude and express your reservations about unmitigated illegal immigration, chances are you will be branded as a racist.

As a non white person, I can and have gotten away with expressing similar views without any social penalties. I can rail against the influx of illegal aliens without being branded or labeled. White people have to watch themselves very carefully while discussing sensitive topics, given the potential cost of being categorised.

I call it "non white" privilege,��

It's even worse than that now. Asian Americans are honorary European Americans via Affirmative Action, and Black conservatives are honorary White supremacists (as Larry Elder could tell you).

[Grace O'Malley]

I think you're missing the point about the entire ordeal considering it was the Irish themselves that reported much of their abuse. The very fact you need to talk about "passing" Protestant Irish people insofar as how well they can blend into Anglo-Saxonhood is evidence for itself. I'm sure that the Irishmen took little comfort that they were white on the census when they got their teeth knocked out, called a "Dirty Mick," and thrown into the back of a "Paddy Wagon." You even argued for the Italians, who had it worse in some ways given Southern Italy's closeness to North Africa and the anxiety that caused people, that Italians were also seen just as white because, well, "look at the census!" Meaningless when everyday people panicked about their mafiosi stereotype and African admixture which would smuggle into their communities via the one-drop rule. Does this sound like people who were treated very white without need for scrutiny? Ben Franklin certainly didn't think so, either.

It doesn't even matter today since both groups are considered white by nearly everyone but the most ardent Nordicists or fantastical "we wuz" ilk who say Sicilians and Romans are whitewashed blacks. Both Italians and Irish have also displaced the legacy Anglos or have absorbed them far more rather than the reverse.

No you are missing the point. You are saying that they were seen as non-white and my point was that they were always white because that is what they were legally not that they weren't discriminated against. What on Earth are you trying to prove? Yes groups were discriminated against and it happened to Europeans as well. I'm responding to the rubbish that you are pushing that they were seen as "non-white" when this is easily disproven. There is some disconnect going on here.

First you were saying that people like the Irish were viewed as "non-white" and when it has been shown to you that they were "white" on arrival in the US and did not "become white" you are still using the same old mantra that they faced discrimination something that no one is denying. It doesn't change the facts that the Irish were British at the time and didn't change race when they went to the US. They were discriminated against in Ireland by the British for generations. Nothing to do with them being non-white.

[Turul Karom]

No you are missing the point. You are saying that they were seen as non-white and my point was that they were always white because that is what they were legally not that they weren't discriminated against. What on Earth are you trying to prove? Yes groups were discriminated against and it happened to Europeans as well. I'm responding to the rubbish that you are pushing that they were seen as "non-white" when this is easily disproven. There is some disconnect going on here.

First you were saying that people like the Irish were viewed as "non-white" and when it has been shown to you that they were "white" on arrival in the US and did not "become white" you are still using the same old mantra that they faced discrimination something that no one is denying. It doesn't change the facts that the Irish were British at the time and didn't change race when they went to the US. They were discriminated against in Ireland by the British for generations. Nothing to do with them being non-white.

Then we're at an impasse; it seems like Anglo-Celtic is the only one who was able to understand the points being made.

[Aila]

Because of the discrimination Catholic Irish experienced under the British rule, it is easy or easier to imagine and believe that the relationship between the First Nations Australians and the Irish was more egalitarian and a supportive one. Although there are many stories to support this, opposite claims have also surfaced.
https://irishaussies.wordpress.com/press-portrayals-of-irish/irish-aboriginal-interactions/

Never thought “otherizing” or “othering” was a political, leftist word; thought it had more to do with making subconscious conscious.
But definitely “otherizing the otherizers” seems to be the game SJWs play nowadays.

But imo. mere political ideologies and allegiances prove to be quite superficial and hollow, even hypocritical in the end if they do not stem from a deeper subconscious (introspective) levels.

I would like to hear your thoughts Creoda and Grace O'Malley on the above linked article and on the Durack family saga plus the Elizabeth Durack / Eddie Burrup controversy if you have those and care to express them?


Australian Biography: Elizabeth Durack - part 1, 2 and 3:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjubCylROeY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blNQh0bcN70
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN9GSTxaGdE

[Creoda]

Because of the discrimination Catholic Irish experienced under the British rule, it is easy or easier to imagine and believe that the relationship between the First Nations Australians and the Irish was more egalitarian and a supportive one. Although there are many stories to support this, opposite claims have also surfaced.
https://irishaussies.wordpress.com/press-portrayals-of-irish/irish-aboriginal-interactions/

Never thought “otherizing” or “othering” was a political, leftist word; thought it had more to do with making subconscious conscious.
But definitely “otherizing the otherizers” seems to be the game SJWs play nowadays.

But imo. mere political ideologies and allegiances prove to be quite superficial and hollow, even hypocritical in the end if they do not stem from a deeper subconscious (introspective) levels.

I would like to hear your thoughts Creoda and Grace O'Malley on the above linked article and on the Durack family saga plus the Elizabeth Durack / Eddie Burrup controversy if you have those and care to express them?
I've never studied the specific relationship between Irish and Aboriginals, but I agree with the tone of the article that Irish having a much different relationship with them than other Whites seems rather far-fetched and revisionist, wishful thinking on the part of some, and personally I wasn't aware of this narrative besides from a small segment in an 80/90s documentary on youtube. Irish Catholics in the US had the historical reputation as being equally 'racist' in their attitudes towards blacks as anyone else, so I don't see why their attitudes towards Australian Aborigines would differ much. And as said before, Irish-Australians have been heavily socially integrated with Anglo-Australians from early colonial times, which would include their attitudes towards natives. I don't have much time for romantic notions of some affinity/understanding/bond between Irish and Aborigines in Australia, it's a bit insulting tbh; but I'm not fully Irish, and 1st generation.

Hadn't heard of the Elizabeth Durack story, quite amusing, thanks for the video.

Out of interest, what state are you in and how long have you/your family been in Australia?

[Aila]

Thank you Creoda for your candid reply.
Depending on where one lives in Australia, many people do not even meet Aboriginals.

Apart from skin tones and music trends, I don’t see Black Americans and Aborigines having much in common.
It is the other First Nations peoples who can and do relate.



Out of interest, what state are you in and how long have you/your family been in Australia?
Got some family in SA, who are 3rd generation Aussies, but myself, I am first generation. Lived here for quite a while now in Vic. NSW, QLD and NT. Next step Broome WA, for a “Bran Nue Dae” (I wish) or at least an extended holiday to explore the Kimberley region.

[Sarin]

The chief privilege back here , at the end of the day , is nothing but money privilege only .

So the prospects where lighter color/features can give one an easier pass mostly lies somewhat in movies/serials (of mediocre content usually) or seeking partner/bride . But then again , it is the South Asian sort of lightness (frequency more towards North India & Pak over other local regions) that clicks and connects with them not the alien white/Euro (in its true sense) . But as I notice on here , some Middle Easterners,North Africans & Latinos give very much vibes of former ; no wonder some actors who went on to play desi characters (including lead roles) in such movies hail from there .

[Grace O'Malley]

Then we're at an impasse; it seems like Anglo-Celtic is the only one who was able to understand the points being made.

Well firstly you were inferring that people like the Irish and Italians were looked on as non-white which is a revisionist take on history. I'm not going into detail about Italians because I'm more aware of Irish history. Irish being Catholic holdouts under the British have had long term discrimination even before they left Ireland. The discrimination that they faced in places like the US and other British colonies was just an extension of what occurred in Ireland.

Your point is that being "white" legally did not stop bigotry that populations like the Irish encountered. So you are using Whiteness in the same context as Whiteness Studies i.e. using Whiteness as something that groups acquired and not in a racial context. The point I'm making is that being legally and "visibly" white did benefit the Irish. This is obvious because the children and grandchildren of these immigrants could assimilate whereas an African-American could not. This is why eventually the Irish were able to gain power and become a group of people that had influence. They were not restricted in the schools they went to and in fact the Catholic Church in places like the US and Australia were pioneers in starting schools and hospitals. I think the "Whiteness" studies don't really do a favour to African-Americans in this regard i.e. conflating social class with race. They had legal obstacles that Irish did not have.

I just don't like people posting inaccuracies i.e. that they were "non-white" when they went to the US. That's just revisionist nonsense and as I've said does no favours to people that were legally "non-white".

[Grace O'Malley]

Thank you Creoda for your candid reply.
Depending on where one lives in Australia, many people do not even meet Aboriginals.

Apart from skin tones and music trends, I don’t see Black Americans and Aborigines having much in common.
It is the other First Nations peoples who can and do relate.


Got some family in SA, who are 3rd generation Aussies, but myself, I am first generation. Lived here for quite a while now in Vic. NSW, QLD and NT. Next step Broome WA, for a “Bran Nue Dae” (I wish) or at least an extended holiday to explore the Kimberley region.

I've never heard of any special relationship between the Irish and Aboriginal people so it's not something I'm aware of. I haven't come across anything historically either. Being in the West, Aboriginal people are definitely more visible and I have worked with some Aboriginal people who I got on with like everyone else. They do have a different concept to work and unfortunately don't stay for long periods. I also know people that have Aboriginal ancestry that you would not know by looking at them. I like how when meetings and some events are held that Aboriginals are acknowledged as the traditional owners of the land.

I have heard of the Duracks being from WA and they were of Irish ancestry. Thanks for the video as I haven't seen it. Borders should be opening up soon and a lot of people here are a bit anxious.

[Aila]

I also know people that have Aboriginal ancestry that you would not know by looking at them.


Yes, I know. Unlike Africans, Aborigines lose their colour within 3 generations, sometimes even in 2.

Hahah. Remembered this picture and looked it up, except I hadn’t remembered who their fathers had been:
https://www.abc.net.au/rightwrongs/story/colour-coding/

Not sure though what this is a testament of. The power of Irish whiteness eh :p

[Loki]

No such thing as "white privilege". If anything, white Europeans had the odds stacked against them during history, and that made them resilient and innovative. Success doesn't come automatically by sitting on your bum and demanding things you allegedly "deserve". Laziness brings poverty. And that eventually leads to envy of those who worked their butts off to achieve a society that you couldn't achieve. Hence all this envious "white privilege" nonsense.

[Grace O'Malley]

Yes, I know. Unlike Africans, Aborigines lose their colour within 3 generations, sometimes even in 2.

Hahah. Remembered this picture and looked it up, except I hadn’t remembered who their fathers had been:
https://www.abc.net.au/rightwrongs/story/colour-coding/

Not sure though what this is a testament of. The power of Irish whiteness eh :p

I've seen it with Asian people and also Indian (I know Indians are also Asian). Grandchildren of half-Asian and half-white can look completely white. I also know an Anglo-Indian who married a white Australian and you would not guess their daughters had any non-European ancestry. I've also seen it with Maori people as well. They just have darker skin but fair hair, blue eyes and mostly European features. It's just when you know you can see it but otherwise would not question them being fully white.

[Daco Celtic]

That's what I was saying in my replies. That "Whiteness" studies conflates race with social status. People literally think that people like the Irish were viewed as non-white racially which shows how gullible people are. Like they think that people a few centuries ago couldn't tell the difference between someone who was Irish and someone who was African or tell a Chinese person from an Italian. Being white racially doesn't mean you didn't suffer discrimination you have to be "non-white" to be discriminated against according to these history revisionists. :picard2:

One of these days Irish will be seen as white in America. Someday we will be free.


https://youtu.be/cv1B0ejhFVE

[Loki]

One of these days Irish will be seen as white in America. Someday we will be free.



There's no benefit anymore to be perceived as white, you might as well try to be seen as black, that would afford you more privileges.