The Natufians Were White

[AndreiDNA]

https://youtu.be/G9WjGhSBxbM?feature=shared

[Lard]

https://youtu.be/G9WjGhSBxbM?feature=shared

Whiteness is a modern construct, born out of colonialism and the slave trade to create a racial hierarchy that justified oppression. It didn’t exist in the ancient world—the idea of being “white” only emerged around the 16th century as a tool to maintain European dominance.

The concept of race, including whiteness, was invented to divide people and consolidate power. Whiteness became tied to privilege and rights in societies built on slavery and colonialism—systems that relied on creating and enforcing racial categories.

The New World played a key role in this, with Europeans defining themselves as superior while labeling others as inferior based on these constructed racial categories. This wasn’t about biology—it was about creating and sustaining a system of inequality. Whiteness, as we understand it, is rooted in power structures, not any inherent trait.

[Opie]

Actually they were less affected than Zagros and CHG in terms of ANE. They were more West Eurasian than the two I mentioned but they had darker skin.

[Scandal]

Whiteness is a modern construct, born out of colonialism and the slave trade to create a racial hierarchy that justified oppression. It didn’t exist in the ancient world—the idea of being “white” only emerged around the 16th century as a tool to maintain European dominance.

The concept of race, including whiteness, was invented to divide people and consolidate power. Whiteness became tied to privilege and rights in societies built on slavery and colonialism—systems that relied on creating and enforcing racial categories.

The New World played a key role in this, with Europeans defining themselves as superior while labeling others as inferior based on these constructed racial categories. This wasn’t about biology—it was about creating and sustaining a system of inequality. Whiteness, as we understand it, is rooted in power structures, not any inherent trait.
This was copied from ChatGPT?
Even in ancient times, when people from Europe looked at non-Europeans, they saw that non-Europeans were a different breed of humans because they looked different.

[Hektor12]

You called some people outside of europe "white" and now euromantic white nationalists will cancel you and save the white privilege.

[cass]

This was copied from ChatGPT?
Even in ancient times, when people from Europe looked at non-Europeans, they saw that non-Europeans were a different breed of humans because they looked different.

Straight out of a progressive leftist's handbook.

[Lard]

This was copied from ChatGPT?
Even in ancient times, when people from Europe looked at non-Europeans, they saw that non-Europeans were a different breed of humans because they looked different.
Oh, so your entire counterargument is "they looked different"?
That’s it?
That’s the groundbreaking insight you’re bringing to the table?
Because that’s just basic human pattern recognition, not evidence that people in the ancient world thought of themselves as part of some global racial category like “white.”

Ancient civilizations didn’t operate on modern racial concepts.
The Greeks identified as Greeks, not as “white people.” Their distinctions were based on language, culture, and citizenship.
Same with the Romans. Rome had emperors from Spain, the Middle East, and North Africa, and nobody cared what their skin tone was—they cared about their status and their connection to Rome. Septimius Severus, born in what is now Libya, ruled the empire. Nobody called him “not white enough.” That kind of racial thinking didn’t exist yet.

Whiteness, as a rigid racial category, didn’t develop until the colonial era.
It was built to justify slavery and European dominance over colonized people. The whole concept of a unified “white race” was crafted in the 16th and 17th centuries, when Europeans needed a way to justify the exploitation of Africans and Indigenous peoples.
If race had been some eternal, obvious truth, why did the Irish, Italians, and Slavs struggle to be considered “white” well into the 20th century? The fact that their status changed over time proves whiteness is a social construct, not some eternal biological reality.

I get why you’re struggling with this.
It’s uncomfortable to realize that something you took for granted as natural was actually invented for power and control. But history doesn’t care about your feelings. The evidence is there, whether you like it or not.

[Lard]

Straight out of a progressive leftist's handbook.

Oh, the irony.

You whine about "progressive leftist handbooks," yet it’s the modern right—especially White Nationalists—who are the ones LARPing as progressives when it comes to identity politics.

You see, the original identity-obsessed, race-first politics you claim to hate?
That’s exactly what White Nationalists are pushing—just with a different skin tone at the top of the hierarchy.

You think you’re rejecting progressive ideology, but all you’re doing is playing the same game, just with a different jersey.

The left says racial identity should dictate policy, morality, and belonging.

The White Nationalist right says the exact same thing—just swapping who’s on top.

You’re both obsessed with race, both trying to construct a rigid identity to rally around, and both justifying historical revisionism to fit your narrative.

So before you come at me with lazy labels, take a step back and realize that you’re the one regurgitating a racialized worldview straight out of a leftist playbook.

I reject the progressive left’s nonsense, and I reject the race-first politics of people like you who are just their mirror image.

Either argue like an adult, or sit down and let the grown-ups talk.

[Scandal]

Oh, so your entire counterargument is "they looked different"?
That’s it?
That’s the groundbreaking insight you’re bringing to the table?
Because that’s just basic human pattern recognition, not evidence that people in the ancient world thought of themselves as part of some global racial category like “white.”

Ancient civilizations didn’t operate on modern racial concepts.
The Greeks identified as Greeks, not as “white people.” Their distinctions were based on language, culture, and citizenship.
Same with the Romans. Rome had emperors from Spain, the Middle East, and North Africa, and nobody cared what their skin tone was—they cared about their status and their connection to Rome. Septimius Severus, born in what is now Libya, ruled the empire. Nobody called him “not white enough.” That kind of racial thinking didn’t exist yet.

Whiteness, as a rigid racial category, didn’t develop until the colonial era.
It was built to justify slavery and European dominance over colonized people. The whole concept of a unified “white race” was crafted in the 16th and 17th centuries, when Europeans needed a way to justify the exploitation of Africans and Indigenous peoples.
If race had been some eternal, obvious truth, why did the Irish, Italians, and Slavs struggle to be considered “white” well into the 20th century? The fact that their status changed over time proves whiteness is a social construct, not some eternal biological reality.

I get why you’re struggling with this.
It’s uncomfortable to realize that something you took for granted as natural was actually invented for power and control. But history doesn’t care about your feelings. The evidence is there, whether you like it or not.

They may not have used the word "white" but they understood differences between light skin people and dark skin people. They were able to see that they were two different kinds of people.

I am copying myself from another thread:

Some people claim "Europeans don't care about race, they only care about nationality" and similar things.

Then why is Europe defined as the land where White people live? Nothing really separates Europe from Asia, Europe is just an extension of Asia. It's the westernmost part of the Asian continent. There are no natural borders between Asia and Europe. Some people will say "but Ural mountains separates Asia from Europe". They don't. Alps, Pyrenees and Carpathian mountains are much taller than Ural mountains yet nobody believes Italy is located on a different continent than Germany because there are Alps between them.

Asian part of Russia is nowadays populated by Russians / White people mostly, but that wasn't the a case a couple of centuries ago, the definition of Europe was already conceived and fixed by the time ethnic Russians started to settle in Asia.


A Frenchman coined the infamous saying that "Africa start at the Pyrenees". Was it because Spaniards looked darker / less White than ethnic Frenchmen?

[Scandal]

Oh, the irony.

You whine about "progressive leftist handbooks," yet it’s the modern right—especially White Nationalists—who are the ones LARPing as progressives when it comes to identity politics.

You see, the original identity-obsessed, race-first politics you claim to hate?
That’s exactly what White Nationalists are pushing—just with a different skin tone at the top of the hierarchy.

You think you’re rejecting progressive ideology, but all you’re doing is playing the same game, just with a different jersey.

The left says racial identity should dictate policy, morality, and belonging.

The White Nationalist right says the exact same thing—just swapping who’s on top.

You’re both obsessed with race, both trying to construct a rigid identity to rally around, and both justifying historical revisionism to fit your narrative.

So before you come at me with lazy labels, take a step back and realize that you’re the one regurgitating a racialized worldview straight out of a leftist playbook.

I reject the progressive left’s nonsense, and I reject the race-first politics of people like you who are just their mirror image.

Either argue like an adult, or sit down and let the grown-ups talk.
I am pro meritocracy not pro whiteness. How do you know cass isn't? You are assuming stuff and like to write useless essays (provided you aren't copying them from chatgpt)

[Lard]

This was copied from ChatGPT?
Even in ancient times, when people from Europe looked at non-Europeans, they saw that non-Europeans were a different breed of humans because they looked different.
Oh, so now you're just throwing around accusations because you can't actually refute anything?

First off, what was Europe in ancient times?
Because it sure as hell wasn’t some unified racial identity like you’re trying to imply.

The Greeks didn’t think of themselves as part of some pan-European brotherhood.
They thought of barbarians as anyone who didn’t speak Greek, whether they were from Persia, Egypt, or even parts of what’s now Europe.

The Romans?
They built an empire that stretched across three continents, where citizenship mattered far more than skin color.
They had emperors from Spain, North Africa, and the Middle East—and nobody cared.

Your idea that "Europeans" in ancient times saw non-Europeans as a different breed is pure modern projection.
People recognized ethnic and cultural differences, sure, but race as you understand it did not exist yet.

And let’s talk about “copy-pasting.” You’re parroting the same old race-essentialist garbage that’s been recycled a thousand times by Stormfront-tier keyboard warriors.

If anyone here sounds like they’re working on a manifesto, it’s you—regurgitating lazy racial determinism while pretending you’re making a profound historical argument.

Try harder.

[Lard]

I am pro meritocracy not pro whiteness. How do you know cass isn't? You are assuming stuff and like to write useless essays (provided you aren't copying them from chatgpt)
Oh, you’re pro-meritocracy now?
Funny how that only gets brought up when it’s convenient.
You assume race didn’t shape power structures, yet you’re blind to how those structures were built.
You cry about assumptions while making your own about me.
You whine about “useless essays” because you can’t handle a real argument.
If you had a point, you’d make it.
Instead, you just deflect like a coward.
Try again—this time with something worth responding to.

[Scandal]

Oh, you’re pro-meritocracy now?
Funny how that only gets brought up when it’s convenient.
You assume race didn’t shape power structures, yet you’re blind to how those structures were built.
You cry about assumptions while making your own about me.
You whine about “useless essays” because you can’t handle a real argument.
If you had a point, you’d make it.
Instead, you just deflect like a coward.
Try again—this time with something worth responding to.
I said what I wanted to say. I'm just not interested in you enough to write more.

[Lard]

They may not have used the word "white" but they understood differences between light skin people and dark skin people. They were able to see that they were two different kinds of people.

I am copying myself from another thread:

Some people claim "Europeans don't care about race, they only care about nationality" and similar things.

Then why is Europe defined as the land where White people live? Nothing really separates Europe from Asia, Europe is just an extension of Asia. It's the westernmost part of the Asian continent. There are no natural borders between Asia and Europe. Some people will say "but Ural mountains separates Asia from Europe". They don't. Alps, Pyrenees and Carpathian mountains are much taller than Ural mountains yet nobody believes Italy is located on a different continent than Germany because there are Alps between them.

Asian part of Russia is nowadays populated by Russians / White people mostly, but that wasn't the a case a couple of centuries ago, the definition of Europe was already conceived and fixed by the time ethnic Russians started to settle in Asia.

A Frenchman coined the infamous saying that "Africa start at the Pyrenees". Was it because Spaniards looked darker / less White than ethnic Frenchmen?

So now you’re just pretending your own argument didn’t shift?

You started with "ancient Europeans saw non-Europeans as a different breed."

Now you’re rambling about geographical definitions of Europe.

You can’t even stay consistent.

Europe wasn’t always “the land of white people.”

The Roman Empire ruled lands from Britain to North Africa.

The Ottomans ruled Southeast Europe for centuries.

Moorish Spain existed for 700 years.

Your own example—Russia—proves that geography was flexible.

Russia expanded into Asia, but its people were still considered European.

So was “Europe” a racial construct, or was it political and cultural?

Because history says the latter.

That Pyrenees quote was a nationalist jab, not a scientific theory.

But you’re desperate to make it fit your weak narrative.

If you had a real argument, you wouldn’t need this much cope.

[Lard]

I said what I wanted to say. I'm just not interested in you enough to write more.

Then why are you still here replying?

You had plenty to say when you thought you had a point.

Now that you’re backed into a corner, suddenly you’re “not interested.”

Classic.

Next time, bring an argument instead of excuses.

[Scandal]

I see you're mad. I'm smiling at the screen now. You accuse me of "crying and whining" even though you're obviously more emotionally invested in the debate than I am. Have fun writing your essays here and "winning the debate" :) I'm out of here.
Btw I have stated I was pro meritocracy in other threads as well. But for you anyone who disagree with you must be "White nationalist"/ pro-white/ whatever.

[Lard]

I see you're mad. I'm smiling at the screen now. You accuse me of "crying and whining" even though you're obviously more emotionally invested in the debate than I am. Have fun writing your essays here and "winning the debate" :) I'm out of here.
Btw I have stated I was pro meritocracy in other threads as well. But for you anyone who disagree with you must be "White nationalist".

Ah yes, the classic “I’m totally not mad, you are” defense.

You had all the energy in the world when you thought you had a point.

Now that you’ve been dismantled, it’s “Haha, I don’t care anyway”.

If you were really smiling at the screen, you wouldn’t need to announce it.

You’d just leave.

But you didn’t.

You needed to let everyone know you totally won before running away.

That’s how I know you lost.

Oh, and before you go, let’s talk about something interesting.

You’re part Hungarian, right?

Hungarians speak a Uralic language, which has non-European origins.

It comes from the Finno-Ugric branch, tracing back to Siberian and Central Asian peoples.

By your own logic, doesn’t that make your claim to “whiteness” a bit tenuous?

Or do exceptions only apply when they benefit you?

Funny how that works.

[Mopi The Dire Wolf]

Good video Andrei

I like you YouTube channel

[Scandal]

Ah yes, the classic “I’m totally not mad, you are” defense.

You had all the energy in the world when you thought you had a point.

Now that you’ve been dismantled, it’s “Haha, I don’t care anyway”.

If you were really smiling at the screen, you wouldn’t need to announce it.

You’d just leave.

But you didn’t.

You needed to let everyone know you totally won before running away.

That’s how I know you lost.

Oh, and before you go, let’s talk about something interesting.

You’re part Hungarian, right?

Hungarians speak a Uralic language, which has non-European origins.

It comes from the Finno-Ugric branch, tracing back to Siberian and Central Asian peoples.

By your own logic, doesn’t that make your claim to “whiteness” a bit tenuous?

Or do exceptions only apply when they benefit you?

Funny how that works.
The usual bla bla bla.
Very "interesting" topic, indeed. Blacks speak English not African language, does that mean they are not black, genius ? Go tell em they are not black because they speak English. Oh yes, my whiteness benefits me so much. Are you the type of guy who thinks if some random white guy in usa earns 100,000 dollars a year it's because he has white privilege?

[Scandal]

Bye :)
You will probably try provoke me to stay, but it ain't happening.

[Opie]

This was copied from ChatGPT?
Even in ancient times, when people from Europe looked at non-Europeans, they saw that non-Europeans were a different breed of humans because they looked different.

I’m a hundred percent sure a Viking were able to distinguish a South Italian from a Levantine.

[Lard]

The usual bla bla bla.
Very "interesting" topic, indeed. Blacks speak English not African language, does that mean they are not black, genius ? Go tell em they are not black because they speak English. Oh yes, my whiteness benefits me so much. Are you the type of guy who thinks if some random white guy in usa earns 100,000 dollars a year it's because he has white privilege?

Ah, the classic “bla bla bla”—the universal cry of someone who’s out of arguments but doesn’t want to admit it.

You completely missed the point, which isn’t surprising.

Nobody said language alone determines race.

But you are the one who framed whiteness as a rigid, eternal identity tied to Europe as “the land of white people.”

Yet Hungarians speak a non-Indo-European language with roots in Central Asia.

So by your own geography-based logic, how do they fit into your neat little racial box?

You can’t answer, so you throw out a weak false equivalence about Black people speaking English.

That’s not even remotely the same thing.

Africans didn’t bring English with them—it was forced upon them through colonization and slavery.

Hungarians, on the other hand, brought their Uralic language with them from outside of Europe.

See the difference?

Of course you don’t, because you were never here to have an actual discussion.

You just wanted to posture like you had something intelligent to say.

And now you’re crying about “white privilege” like a triggered liberal in reverse.

You tell on yourself with every reply.

Try again—this time with an argument that isn’t built on sand.

[Scandal]

I’m a hundred percent sure a Viking were able to distinguish a South Italian from a Levantine.
Ofc they weren't. I'm speaking about generic terms.

[Jased]

I've seen some levantines looking European, while Greeks that could possibly be Arabs .

[cass]

Oh, the irony.

You whine about "progressive leftist handbooks," yet it’s the modern right—especially White Nationalists—who are the ones LARPing as progressives when it comes to identity politics.

You see, the original identity-obsessed, race-first politics you claim to hate?
That’s exactly what White Nationalists are pushing—just with a different skin tone at the top of the hierarchy.

You think you’re rejecting progressive ideology, but all you’re doing is playing the same game, just with a different jersey.

The left says racial identity should dictate policy, morality, and belonging.

The White Nationalist right says the exact same thing—just swapping who’s on top.

You’re both obsessed with race, both trying to construct a rigid identity to rally around, and both justifying historical revisionism to fit your narrative.

So before you come at me with lazy labels, take a step back and realize that you’re the one regurgitating a racialized worldview straight out of a leftist playbook.

I reject the progressive left’s nonsense, and I reject the race-first politics of people like you who are just their mirror image.

Either argue like an adult, or sit down and let the grown-ups talk.

It is obvious to anyone interested in genetics that there exists a biological category (both genetic and presumably anthropological) that distinguishes Caucasoid/Europid groups. Whether one chooses to label it as "white" is irrelevant. This has nothing to do with politics—unless, of course, someone deliberately undermines the achievements of biological sciences for political reasons.

Science should aim to describe reality as it is, rather than be shaped by ideological considerations. The rejection of well-established genetic and anthropological distinctions out of political motives does not contribute to progress but rather hinders our understanding of human diversity.

[Oliver109]

I think it's pretty obvious that a lot of natufians were whitecro magnon man was discovered in natufian burials and today there are white people existing in the region, climatically speaking the climate is European as well so it's a zone where whiteness is able to exist unlike say Southern Arabia or southern Egypt.

[Lard]

I've seen some levantines looking European, while Greeks that could possibly be Arabs .
That’s because phenotypic overlap is a reality, and it completely wrecks the simplistic racial narratives people try to push.

Southern Italians—especially Sicilians, Calabrians, and Apulians—along with Aegean island Greeks, share a lot of overlap with the Southern Levant and North Africa due to thousands of years of migration, trade, and conquest.

You can find Levantines who look fully European and Southern Italians who could pass as Lebanese, Syrian, or even North African.

Take Luigi Mangione, for example.

He’s Southern Italian, yet his mugshot makes him a dead ringer for a Levantine Arab or a North African.

Not surprising, given that Southern Italy has been a genetic crossroads for millennia.

Also, let’s not forget—he’s an accused murderer.

So if people want to argue about “racial purity” or “who looks European,” maybe they should start by figuring out whether they’re idolizing the wrong kind of poster boy.
https://i.ibb.co/s9tFRKxG/Screenshot-2025-03-11-at-17-16-04-Luigi-Mangione-charged-with-murder-as-act-of-terrorism-in-US-CEO-s.png

[Oliver109]

That’s because phenotypic overlap is a reality, and it completely wrecks the simplistic racial narratives people try to push.

Southern Italians—especially Sicilians, Calabrians, and Apulians—along with Aegean island Greeks, share a lot of overlap with the Southern Levant and North Africa due to thousands of years of migration, trade, and conquest.

You can find Levantines who look fully European and Southern Italians who could pass as Lebanese, Syrian, or even North African.

Take Luigi Mangione, for example.

He’s Southern Italian, yet his mugshot makes him a dead ringer for a Levantine Arab or a North African.

Not surprising, given that Southern Italy has been a genetic crossroads for millennia.

Also, let’s not forget—he’s an accused murderer.

So if people want to argue about “racial purity” or “who looks European,” maybe they should start by figuring out whether they’re idolizing the wrong kind of poster boy.
https://i.ibb.co/s9tFRKxG/Screenshot-2025-03-11-at-17-16-04-Luigi-Mangione-charged-with-murder-as-act-of-terrorism-in-US-CEO-s.png

I was in northern Italy today funnily enough, surprising amounts of people there could easily pass as Levantines

[Lard]

I was in northern Italy today funnily enough, surprising amounts of people there could easily pass as Levantines
Yeah, not surprising at all.

People act like Northern Italians are some untouched alpine Nordics, but phenotypic overlap exists everywhere.

Same reason you get dark-haired, swarthy Brits or fair-skinned Levantines—it’s just how populations work.

Look at Russell Brand—fully Anglo-Saxon, yet he doesn’t fit the stereotypical look of Northwestern Europeans at all.

People love rigid racial categories, but reality doesn’t care about their neat little boxes.
https://i.ibb.co/r2nyWYBK/Screenshot-2025-03-11-at-17-32-45-Russell-Brand-Content-Removed-From-BBC.png

[Oliver109]

Yeah, not surprising at all.

People act like Northern Italians are some untouched alpine Nordics, but phenotypic overlap exists everywhere.

Same reason you get dark-haired, swarthy Brits or fair-skinned Levantines—it’s just how populations work.

Look at Russell Brand—fully Anglo-Saxon, yet he doesn’t fit the stereotypical look of Northwestern Europeans at all.

People love rigid racial categories, but reality doesn’t care about their neat little boxes.
https://i.ibb.co/r2nyWYBK/Screenshot-2025-03-11-at-17-32-45-Russell-Brand-Content-Removed-From-BBC.png

Absolutely, I was in Liguria, overwhelmingly brunet though I did see a few English looking locals, the French tourist stood out as outsiders generally.

[Tooting Carmen]

Yeah, not surprising at all.

People act like Northern Italians are some untouched alpine Nordics, but phenotypic overlap exists everywhere.

Same reason you get dark-haired, swarthy Brits or fair-skinned Levantines—it’s just how populations work.

Look at Russell Brand—fully Anglo-Saxon, yet he doesn’t fit the stereotypical look of Northwestern Europeans at all.

People love rigid racial categories, but reality doesn’t care about their neat little boxes.
https://i.ibb.co/r2nyWYBK/Screenshot-2025-03-11-at-17-32-45-Russell-Brand-Content-Removed-From-BBC.png

Yes, unlike sex which is absolute and binary (except for intersex people, who are a tiny number), race is more of a spectrum. However, while hard and fast generalisations seldom work 100% of the time, there are strong tendencies in how ethnic and national groups look. Just because you might get a 1% or so of Hrithik Roshan types in India or Kiko Vega types in Spain, doesn't mean that we cannot have a good idea of how Indians or Spaniards tend to look.

[Lard]

Absolutely, I was in Liguria, overwhelmingly brunet though I did see a few English looking locals, the French tourist stood out as outsiders generally.
Matteo Salvini, Deputy Prime Minister of Italy, is a perfect example of how Northern Italian phenotypes don’t always match the stereotypical “Alpine” or “Nordic” look that some expect.

Despite being born in Milan with Emilia-Romagnan ancestry, his features—dark hair, prominent facial structure—are very common in Northern Italy.

The reality is, the Mediterranean genetic continuum doesn’t stop at some arbitrary European border.

The stereotypes about Middle Eastern and North African people are garbage.

In reality, many from the Southern Levant, North Africa, and the Maghreb fall well within the Southern European phenotypic range.

People love to pretend there’s a sharp racial divide, but if you actually look at populations, the overlap is undeniable.
https://i.ibb.co/S7xt30xX/Screenshot-2025-03-11-at-17-49-03-Matteo-Salvini-Italy-The-Global-Vote-Good-Country.png

[happycow]

Natufians were blax. pic of me in my avatar that is what natufians looked like.

[Tooting Carmen]

Matteo Salvini, Deputy Prime Minister of Italy, is a perfect example of how Northern Italian phenotypes don’t always match the stereotypical “Alpine” or “Nordic” look that some expect.

Despite being born in Milan with Emilia-Romagnan ancestry, his features—dark hair, prominent facial structure—are very common in Northern Italy.

The reality is, the Mediterranean genetic continuum doesn’t stop at some arbitrary European border.

The stereotypes about Middle Eastern and North African people are garbage.

In reality, many from the Southern Levant, North Africa, and the Maghreb fall well within the Southern European phenotypic range.

People love to pretend there’s a sharp racial divide, but if you actually look at populations, the overlap is undeniable.
https://i.ibb.co/S7xt30xX/Screenshot-2025-03-11-at-17-49-03-Matteo-Salvini-Italy-The-Global-Vote-Good-Country.png

I've been saying things along these lines for a long time, and have upset many in the process.

[Lard]

I've been saying things along these lines for a long time, and have upset many in the presence.

Yeah, I hear you. I had two posters trolling me on this thread—"Scandal"/Hungarian-Slovak and "Anscass"/Polish—both parroting White Nationalist talking points like they were reading from a script.

Funny thing is, 80 years ago, their racial stock would’ve only been seen as fit for cannon fodder on the Eastern Front by the Third Reich.

Yet here they are, LARPing as the gatekeepers of "whiteness" like they wouldn’t have been looked down on by the very ideology they’re regurgitating.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

This was copied from ChatGPT?
Even in ancient times, when people from Europe looked at non-Europeans, they saw that non-Europeans were a different breed of humans because they looked different.


Do you think the Romans thought northern Europeans were closer to them than North Africans?

[Oliver109]

Yeah, I hear you. I had two posters trolling me on this thread—"Scandal"/Hungarian-Slovak and "Anscass"/Polish—both parroting White Nationalist talking points like they were reading from a script.

Funny thing is, 80 years ago, their racial stock would’ve only been seen as fit for cannon fodder on the Eastern Front by the Third Reich.

Yet here they are, LARPing as the gatekeepers of "whiteness" like they wouldn’t have been looked down on by the very ideology they’re regurgitating.

Strictly speaking while Eastern Europeans are often very white they have mongol influences that make their character quite distinct from western Euros, at least I think that's how the Nazis saw it.

[Lard]

Yes, unlike sex which is absolute and binary (except for intersex people, who are a tiny number), race is more of a spectrum. However, while hard and fast generalisations seldom work 100% of the time, there are strong tendencies in how ethnic and national groups look. Just because you might get a 1% or so of Hrithik Roshan types in India or Kiko Vega types in Spain, doesn't mean that we cannot have a good idea of how Indians or Spaniards tend to look.

True, outliers don’t define the whole, but they do prove that phenotype isn’t as rigid as people like to pretend.

Yeah, most Indians don’t look like Hrithik Roshan, just like most Spaniards don’t look like Kiko Vega, but their existence still matters because it shows how populations have internal diversity.

And when you factor in history and geography, it makes perfect sense.

Southern Spain and Morocco are separated by just 8 miles of water.

For most of history, that wasn’t a barrier—it was a bridge for trade, migration, and conquest.

Not to mention, most of Iberia was controlled by Arabs and Moors for centuries.

So expecting a one-size-fits-all look for a region like Spain is just ignoring how populations actually work.

[Oliver109]

True, outliers don’t define the whole, but they do prove that phenotype isn’t as rigid as people like to pretend.

Yeah, most Indians don’t look like Hrithik Roshan, just like most Spaniards don’t look like Kiko Vega, but their existence still matters because it shows how populations have internal diversity.

And when you factor in history and geography, it makes perfect sense.

Southern Spain and Morocco are separated by just 8 miles of water.

For most of history, that wasn’t a barrier—it was a bridge for trade, migration, and conquest.

Not to mention, most of Iberia was controlled by Arabs and Moors for centuries.

So expecting a one-size-fits-all look for a region like Spain is just ignoring how populations actually work.

Southern Spaniards are more related to the Cappadocians than with the Moroccans though, the two populations diverge a lot.

[Lard]

Southern Spaniards are more related to the Cappadocians than with the Moroccans though, the two populations diverge a lot.

Genetically, Southern Spaniards do have closer ties to other Mediterranean Europeans, like Cappadocians, than to Moroccans—but that doesn’t erase the historical and phenotypic overlap between Southern Spain and North Africa.

Genetic distance doesn’t mean absolute separation. Spain and Morocco have been exchanging genes, culture, and trade for thousands of years.

And while North Africans and Iberians have diverged since the Neolithic, the Moorish rule of Iberia for nearly 800 years left an undeniable impact.

The fact that Southern Spaniards are genetically distinct from Moroccans doesn’t mean there isn’t visible overlap—because there absolutely is.

That’s why you can still find Spaniards who could pass as Maghrebis and vice versa, despite the broader genetic differences.

Trying to ignore that just because of overall divergence is missing the bigger picture.

[Lard]

Strictly speaking while Eastern Europeans are often very white they have mongol influences that make their character quite distinct from western Euros, at least I think that's how the Nazis saw it.

The Third Reich’s view of Slavs was absolutely clear: they saw them as racially inferior and unworthy of inclusion in their vision of a “Greater Germany.”

Hitler and the Nazi leadership viewed Eastern Europeans—especially Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, and other Slavic groups—as subhuman (Untermenschen), fit only for enslavement or extermination.

Their entire plan for Eastern Europe, the Generalplan Ost, was based on ethnic cleansing, mass deportation, and forced labor.

Millions of Slavs were murdered, starved, or worked to death in concentration camps.

Yet, historical revisionists of Eastern European heritage who try to blend White Nationalism with National Socialism conveniently ignore this.

They push the idea that National Socialism was just about “European brotherhood,” while pretending the Reich saw them as anything other than cannon fodder and expendable labor.

It’s the ultimate irony—trying to glorify a system that would have never accepted them as equals in the first place.

[Oliver109]

Genetically, Southern Spaniards do have closer ties to other Mediterranean Europeans, like Cappadocians, than to Moroccans—but that doesn’t erase the historical and phenotypic overlap between Southern Spain and North Africa.

Genetic distance doesn’t mean absolute separation. Spain and Morocco have been exchanging genes, culture, and trade for thousands of years.

And while North Africans and Iberians have diverged since the Neolithic, the Moorish rule of Iberia for nearly 800 years left an undeniable impact.

The fact that Southern Spaniards are genetically distinct from Moroccans doesn’t mean there isn’t visible overlap—because there absolutely is.

That’s why you can still find Spaniards who could pass as Maghrebis and vice versa, despite the broader genetic differences.

Trying to ignore that just because of overall divergence is missing the bigger picture.

I don't see a great deal of physical similarity, it's sometimes seen but not that often, the facial features are different, this ix even the case with very light Moroccans, coon said that cro magnon types appear more in Berbers than they do in Spanish.

[Lard]

I don't see a great deal of physical similarity, it's sometimes seen but not that often, the facial features are different, this ix even the case with very light Moroccans, coon said that cro magnon types appear more in Berbers than they do in Spanish.
If you dropped Ana María "Anne" Hidalgo in Rabat, she'd blend in effortlessly with the locals. And she's far from an atypical Spaniard. In fact, plenty of Portuguese are even more passable in North Africa.
https://i.ibb.co/zWsthgRq/Screenshot-2025-03-11-at-19-32-45-La-isle-a-Anne-Hidalgo-proclamada-de-nuevo-alcaldesa-de-Par-s-El-C.png

[Oliver109]

If you dropped Ana María "Anne" Hidalgo in Rabat, she'd blend in effortlessly with the locals. And she's far from an atypical Spaniard. In fact, plenty of Portuguese are even more passable in North Africa.
https://i.ibb.co/zWsthgRq/Screenshot-2025-03-11-at-19-32-45-La-isle-a-Anne-Hidalgo-proclamada-de-nuevo-alcaldesa-de-Par-s-El-C.png

That's because she is berid and a dark one at that, the Spanish can pass more easily in Morocco than most Moroccans can pass in Spain.

[Grace O'Malley]

Whiteness, as a rigid racial category, didn’t develop until the colonial era.
It was built to justify slavery and European dominance over colonized people. The whole concept of a unified “white race” was crafted in the 16th and 17th centuries, when Europeans needed a way to justify the exploitation of Africans and Indigenous peoples.
If race had been some eternal, obvious truth, why did the Irish, Italians, and Slavs struggle to be considered “white” well into the 20th century? The fact that their status changed over time proves whiteness is a social construct, not some eternal biological reality.



Why do people use this? It is easily refuted. You can be discriminated against and still be white. Those populations were always considered white. What evidence do you have to say they weren't?

As someone who had Irish relatives that went to the US in the 1800s you can see on Census records they were marked as white. Also they became US citizens which is something that they could not do if they weren't considered white.


Here are some objective tests as to whether a group was historically considered “white” in the United States: Were members of the group allowed to go to “whites-only” schools in the South, or otherwise partake of the advantages that accrued to whites under Jim Crow? Were they ever segregated in schools by law, anywhere in the United States, such that “whites” went to one school, and the group in question was relegated to another? When laws banned interracial marriage in many states (not just in the South), if a white Anglo-Saxon wanted to marry a member of the group, would that have been against the law? Some labor unions restricted their membership to whites. Did such unions exclude members of the group in question? Were members of the group ever entirely excluded from being able to immigrate to the United States, or face special bans or restrictions in becoming citizens?

If you use such objective tests, you find that Irish, Jews, Italians and other white ethnics were indeed considered white by law and by custom (as in the case of labor unions). Indeed, some lighter-skinned African Americans of mixed heritage “passed” as white by claiming they were of Arab descent and that explained their relative swarthiness, showing that Arab Americans, another group whose “whiteness” has been questioned, were considered white. By contrast, persons of African, Asian, Mexican and Native American descent faced various degrees of exclusion from public schools and labor unions, bans on marriage and direct restrictions on immigration and citizenship.

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/

[Lard]

That's because she is berid and a dark one at that, the Spanish can pass more easily in Morocco than most Moroccans can pass in Spain.

That doesn't really hold up. If swarthy Iberians can blend in seamlessly in Morocco, then an equally dark Moroccan should have no issue "passing" in Iberia. The overlap goes both ways—there are plenty of Moroccans who could fit into Iberia just as well as some Iberians fit in Morocco.

[Lard]

Why do people use this? It is easily refuted. You can be discriminated against and still be white. Those populations were always considered white. What evidence do you have to say they weren't?

As someone who had Irish relatives that went to the US in the 1800s you can see on Census records they were marked as white. Also they became US citizens which is something that they could not do if they weren't considered white.



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/
The fact that Irish, Italians, and Slavs were legally categorized as "white" on censuses or allowed to become citizens doesn't mean they were fully accepted as part of the dominant white racial group in the same way Anglo-Saxons were. Whiteness has always been more than just a legal designation—it’s a social and cultural hierarchy.

Those groups faced racialized discrimination, were often treated as inferior, and were even described in explicitly racial terms at the time (e.g., Irish as "savages" and Italians as "mongrels"). If they were always seen as unquestionably white, why did they have to earn their way into whiteness over time? The social barriers they faced show that whiteness was a shifting, exclusionary category rather than a fixed racial truth.

Even the examples you provided—like mixed African Americans "passing" as Arab—actually reinforce the idea that whiteness is a flexible social construct. Arabs were allowed to be legally white, but still faced discrimination, just like Southern and Eastern Europeans. The law might have labeled them white, but society still treated them as something "other" for a long time.

[King Camelot]

Why do people use this? It is easily refuted. You can be discriminated against and still be white. Those populations were always considered white. What evidence do you have to say they weren't?

As someone who had Irish relatives that went to the US in the 1800s you can see on Census records they were marked as white. Also they became US citizens which is something that they could not do if they weren't considered white.



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/


Thy words ring true, those Irish kin of thine, who sought refuge in America's lands, were ever marked as 'white' in census records, a testament to their status in the eyes of the law. And, lest we forget, they were granted citizenship, a privilege denied to those deemed 'other' by the powers that be. O, how the quill of irony doth scratch the parchment of ignorance! For those who wouldst claim that certain white populations were not considered thus are naught but misguided souls. Methinks they need but open their eyes to see the truth that lies before them, plain as day. Thou hast hit the nail on the head, good lady! Thy wisdom and wit doth shine through, like the sun piercing the clouds of misguidance.

[Grace O'Malley]

The fact that Irish, Italians, and Slavs were legally categorized as "white" on censuses or allowed to become citizens doesn't mean they were fully accepted as part of the dominant white racial group in the same way Anglo-Saxons were. Whiteness has always been more than just a legal designation—it’s a social and cultural hierarchy.

Those groups faced racialized discrimination, were often treated as inferior, and were even described in explicitly racial terms at the time (e.g., Irish as "savages" and Italians as "mongrels"). If they were always seen as unquestionably white, why did they have to earn their way into whiteness over time? The social barriers they faced show that whiteness was a shifting, exclusionary category rather than a fixed racial truth.

Even the examples you provided—like mixed African Americans "passing" as Arab—actually reinforce the idea that whiteness is a flexible social construct. Arabs were allowed to be legally white, but still faced discrimination, just like Southern and Eastern Europeans. The law might have labeled them white, but society still treated them as something "other" for a long time.

Yes they were discriminated against but having had this come up numerous times I've read a lot of literature on the topic, they were never considered not white. The Irish for example were considered Celtic by the British and the Celts were considered lesser than the Anglo-Saxons however they were still considered a part of the white group. Being white doesn't mean you won't be discriminated against. The main problem with the Irish was their Catholicism.

[Lard]

Yes they were discriminated against but having had this come up numerous times I've read a lot of literature on the topic, they were never considered not white. The Irish for example were considered Celtic by the British and the Celts were considered lesser than the Anglo-Saxons however they were still considered a part of the white group. Being white doesn't mean you won't be discriminated against. The main problem with the Irish was their Catholicism.
https://i.ibb.co/wFK8j1wr/Screenshot-2025-03-11-at-20-04-58-The-simian-negroid-Irish-depicted-in-English-and-American-cartoons.png
The second incarnation of the KKK in the early 20th century would strongly disagree with the idea that the Irish were always fully accepted as "white." Irish Catholics were beaten in the streets, denied jobs, and specifically targeted by nativist groups like the Know-Nothings before them. Signs reading "No Irish Need Apply" weren’t just about religion—they reflected a deeper racialized prejudice.

On top of that, 19th-century Anglo-American media routinely depicted the Irish as simian and more ape than man, directly comparing them to Africans. Publications like Harper’s Weekly portrayed the Irish as a lesser strain of humanity, reinforcing the idea that they weren’t initially seen as equals within the white racial hierarchy.

The fact that the Irish had to earn their way into whiteness over time, rather than being fully accepted from the start, shows that whiteness wasn't a fixed category but a shifting social construct. If whiteness were truly rigid and unquestioned, those racialized caricatures and exclusionary movements wouldn’t have existed in the first place.

[Smeagol]

Sure, they were Caucasoids.

[Smeagol]

The second incarnation of the KKK in the early 20th century would strongly disagree with the idea that the Irish were always fully accepted as "white." Irish Catholics were beaten in the streets, denied jobs, and specifically targeted by nativist groups like the Know-Nothings before them. Signs reading "No Irish Need Apply" weren’t just about religion—they reflected a deeper racialized prejudice.

First of all, no, the KKK didn't just beat people up in the streets without provocation. Second, of all, none of that has anything to do with whiteness. You have the idea that leftists put in your head that white = some sort of privileged social status. Being Anglo-Saxon was better than being Irish, but both were white. And some satirical cartoons don't change that.

[Lard]

First of all, no, the KKK didn't just beat people up in the streets without provocation. Second, of all, none of that has anything to do with whiteness. You have the idea that leftists put in your head that white = some sort of privileged social status. Being Anglo-Saxon was better than being Irish, but both were white. And some satirical cartoons don't change that.
First of all, the idea that the KKK “didn’t just beat people up in the streets without provocation” is historically false. The second-wave KKK wasn’t just targeting African Americans—it was also violently anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant, with Irish Catholics being among their victims. Father Charles Coughlin, an Irish Catholic priest, had his church burned to the ground by the Klan in Michigan, proving that the KKK saw Irish Catholics as outsiders and a threat to their vision of a “pure” America.

Second, whiteness hasn’t just been about skin color—it has historically been tied to social status and inclusion within the dominant racial hierarchy. If the Irish were unquestionably seen as white from the start, why were they repeatedly depicted in Anglo-American media as simian, primitive, and closer to Africans than to Anglo-Saxons? Why were they denied jobs, faced nativist violence, and had to fight for full acceptance over time?

The fact that whiteness expanded to fully include the Irish, Italians, and other European ethnics only after they assimilated and distanced themselves from Black and non-European populations shows that whiteness was a shifting, constructed category, not a fixed racial truth.

[Smeagol]

First of all, the idea that the KKK “didn’t just beat people up in the streets without provocation” is historically false. The second-wave KKK wasn’t just targeting African Americans—it was also violently anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant, with Irish Catholics being among their victims.

The KKK didn't go around beating people of any kind up for no reason.


the fact that whiteness expanded to fully include the Irish, Italians, and other European ethnics only after they assimilated and distanced themselves from Black and non-European populations shows that whiteness was a shifting, constructed category, not a fixed racial truth.

You haven't demonstrated whiteness ever "expanded to include these groups." The fact that native born Americans didn't like them isn't proof they saw them as not white.

To get an example of the mindset of the time, listen to American Nazi Party leader George Lincoln Rockwell at 1:54: When asked if he considers Jews to be white, he says of course, but he obviously didn't care for the Jews, view them as genuine Americans, or want them in his party.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRlvjkQFQvg&ab_channel=JedBonnem

[Lard]

The KKK didn't go around beating people of any kind up for no reason.



You haven't demonstrated whiteness ever "expanded to include these groups." The fact that native born Americans didn't like them isn't proof they saw them as not white.

To get an example of the mindset of the time, listen to American Nazi Party member leader George Lincoln Rockwell at 1:54: When asked if he considers Jews to be white, he says of course, but he obviously didn't care for the Jews, view them as genuine Americans, or want them in his party.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRlvjkQFQvg&ab_channel=JedBonnem

The claim that whiteness never expanded to include groups like the Irish, Italians, and other European ethnics ignores the historical record. Discrimination alone doesn’t prove exclusion from whiteness, but when groups are repeatedly depicted as a separate race—like the Irish being caricatured as simian and compared to Africans—that suggests they were not initially seen as fully white in the way Anglo-Saxons were.

Legal cases also reflect this shifting boundary. Courts had to explicitly define who was white for the purposes of citizenship, and at different points in history, certain European groups were racialized in ways that put their whiteness into question. The Irish, for example, were sometimes labeled as a separate "Celtic race" rather than simply white.

As for Rockwell, he operated in the mid-20th century, long after the Irish, Italians, and Slavs had fully assimilated into whiteness. By that time, whiteness had already expanded to include all Europeans, while still excluding Jews in a cultural and social sense. That actually supports my point—whiteness was a constructed, evolving category that adjusted to include new groups over time based on shifting social and political conditions.

[Smeagol]

The claim that whiteness never expanded to include groups like the Irish, Italians, and other European ethnics ignores the historical record. Discrimination alone doesn’t prove exclusion from whiteness, but when groups are repeatedly depicted as a separate race—like the Irish being caricatured as simian and compared to Africans—that suggests they were not initially seen as fully white in the way Anglo-Saxons were.

No, some cartoons don't actually suggest that, lol. You can find similar memes about various groups on this very forum.


Legal cases also reflect this shifting boundary. Courts had to explicitly define who was white for the purposes of citizenship, and at different points in history, certain European groups were racialized in ways that put their whiteness into question. The Irish, for example, were sometimes labeled as a separate "Celtic race" rather than simply white

Try looking up some of those legal cases. They were considering the question of whether groups like Hindus, or Arabs were eligible for naturalization. The Irish people's status as whites was never questioned.

You evidently don't understand how the word "race" was often used in the late 19th and early 20th century. Referring to the "Celtic race" was in no sense separating Celts from whites.


As for Rockwell

The point was to illustrate the mindset i'm talking about, I know Rockwell was after the time you're talking about.


By that time, whiteness had already expanded to include all Europeans, while still excluding Jews in a cultural and social sense.

Then it seems odd the American Nazi Party leader would unequivocally say Jews are white.

[Grace O'Malley]

https://i.ibb.co/wFK8j1wr/Screenshot-2025-03-11-at-20-04-58-The-simian-negroid-Irish-depicted-in-English-and-American-cartoons.png
The second incarnation of the KKK in the early 20th century would strongly disagree with the idea that the Irish were always fully accepted as "white." Irish Catholics were beaten in the streets, denied jobs, and specifically targeted by nativist groups like the Know-Nothings before them. Signs reading "No Irish Need Apply" weren’t just about religion—they reflected a deeper racialized prejudice.

On top of that, 19th-century Anglo-American media routinely depicted the Irish as simian and more ape than man, directly comparing them to Africans. Publications like Harper’s Weekly portrayed the Irish as a lesser strain of humanity, reinforcing the idea that they weren’t initially seen as equals within the white racial hierarchy.

The fact that the Irish had to earn their way into whiteness over time, rather than being fully accepted from the start, shows that whiteness wasn't a fixed category but a shifting social construct. If whiteness were truly rigid and unquestioned, those racialized caricatures and exclusionary movements wouldn’t have existed in the first place.

They used those derogatory cartoons all the time in the past. The Irish didn't earn their way to whiteness they were always white. What happened is that they became accepted as part of "mainstream America". People are conflating social class with race. It's obvious some groups were white just by looking at them. This was no different in the 1700s or 1800s.

Groups always discriminated against each other even in Europe. The rich thought the poorer class to be scum. Are you thinking that to be discriminated against you can't be white? Whites have always discriminated against other whites and blacks have always discriminated against other blacks, Asians have discriminated against other Asians. The discrimination against the Irish was based on colonialism. The British wanted the Irish to become the same as them so they wanted them to change their religion and stop speaking their language. The Irish rebelled and so the British dehumanised them.


It is important to critique the historical construction of whiteness, if only to disrupt its status as an uninterrogated norm. Yet the claim that Irish Americans “became white” raises a significantly underexamined conceptual challenge, as David Lloyd has astutely observed: “Since even emancipation failed to allow the former slaves to escape the taint of blackness and become fully fledged citizens, this explanation clearly begs the question of how such a crossing of the ethnic/racial line would have been possible if the Irish were not already to some degree regarded as white.”Footnote6 For Lloyd, what has frequently been described as a historical transit of Irishness into whiteness in the United States depends upon both the flexibility of whiteness to accommodate and reshape itself around Irishness and the amenability of Irishness to be understood as white from the start—in a way that persons of African descent could not be so understood. At least an incipient Irish whiteness must precede, rather than arise out of, the historical developments that Ignatiev details.

Patrick O'Malley, Irish Whiteness and the Nineteenth-Century Construction of Race

There is a load of literature on this.

Will a rich black man become white?

[R1b-L51]

They used those derogatory cartoons all the time in the past. The Irish didn't earn their way to whiteness they were always white. What happened is that they became accepted as part of "mainstream America". People are conflating social class with race. It's obvious some groups were white just by looking at them. This was no different in the 1700s or 1800s.

Groups always discriminated against each other even in Europe. The rich thought the poorer class to be scum. Are you thinking that to be discriminated against you can't be white? Whites have always discriminated against other whites and blacks have always discriminated against other blacks, Asians have discriminated against other Asians. The discrimination against the Irish was based on colonialism. The British wanted the Irish to become the same as them so they wanted them to change their religion and stop speaking their language. The Irish rebelled and so the British dehumanised them.



Patrick O'Malley, Irish Whiteness and the Nineteenth-Century Construction of Race

There is a load of literature on this.

Will a rich black man become white?

If the Irish are not white then I am Pakistani because of my Indo-Aryan ancestry, and then the Russians are Chinese, and the Canaries are black Eritreans.

[Opie]

First of all, no, the KKK didn't just beat people up in the streets without provocation. Second, of all, none of that has anything to do with whiteness. You have the idea that leftists put in your head that white = some sort of privileged social status. Being Anglo-Saxon was better than being Irish, but both were white. And some satirical cartoons don't change that.

What was the status of Turks? There were naturalized Turks as early as 1910s in the US.

[Smeagol]

What was the status of Turks? There were naturalized Turks as early as 1910s in the US.

I don't know or care. Sorry.

[Lard]

They used those derogatory cartoons all the time in the past. The Irish didn't earn their way to whiteness they were always white. What happened is that they became accepted as part of "mainstream America". People are conflating social class with race. It's obvious some groups were white just by looking at them. This was no different in the 1700s or 1800s.

Groups always discriminated against each other even in Europe. The rich thought the poorer class to be scum. Are you thinking that to be discriminated against you can't be white? Whites have always discriminated against other whites and blacks have always discriminated against other blacks, Asians have discriminated against other Asians. The discrimination against the Irish was based on colonialism. The British wanted the Irish to become the same as them so they wanted them to change their religion and stop speaking their language. The Irish rebelled and so the British dehumanised them.



Patrick O'Malley, Irish Whiteness and the Nineteenth-Century Construction of Race

There is a load of literature on this.

Will a rich black man become white?
The argument that the Irish "were always white" ignores the historical reality of how race was socially constructed and applied in different ways over time. Yes, discrimination and social class played a role, but the Irish weren’t just seen as a poor, lower-class group—they were explicitly racialized as something separate from Anglo-Saxons, often compared to Africans and depicted as subhuman in ways that went beyond simple class discrimination.

If whiteness was just about "looking white," then why were the Irish portrayed as simian and more ape than man in Anglo-American media? Why were they referred to as a separate Celtic race rather than simply white Europeans? Why did nativist movements like the Know-Nothings and the second-wave KKK target them specifically?

The claim that British colonialism was the only reason for Irish dehumanization ignores how those same racialized stereotypes followed them to America, where they weren’t initially accepted as equals to Anglo-Americans. Over time, as they assimilated, gained political power, and distanced themselves from Black and non-European populations, they became fully incorporated into whiteness. That process—of gradually being accepted into the dominant racial group—is exactly what “earning whiteness” means. Whiteness has never been just a fixed biological category—it has always been a shifting social construct.

[R1b-L51]

Whiteness is a modern construct, born out of colonialism and the slave trade to create a racial hierarchy that justified oppression. It didn’t exist in the ancient world—the idea of being “white” only emerged around the 16th century as a tool to maintain European dominance.

The concept of race, including whiteness, was invented to divide people and consolidate power. Whiteness became tied to privilege and rights in societies built on slavery and colonialism—systems that relied on creating and enforcing racial categories.

The New World played a key role in this, with Europeans defining themselves as superior while labeling others as inferior based on these constructed racial categories. This wasn’t about biology—it was about creating and sustaining a system of inequality. Whiteness, as we understand it, is rooted in power structures, not any inherent trait.

And before whiteness there was Arabism, because the greatest slave owners in history were the Arabs, and they enslaved both whites and blacks (and before them their masters were the Egyptians, and before that surely the Sumerians)

[R1b-L51]

The argument that the Irish "were always white" ignores the historical reality of how race was socially constructed and applied in different ways over time. Yes, discrimination and social class played a role, but the Irish weren’t just seen as a poor, lower-class group—they were explicitly racialized as something separate from Anglo-Saxons, often compared to Africans and depicted as subhuman in ways that went beyond simple class discrimination.

If whiteness was just about "looking white," then why were the Irish portrayed as simian and more ape than man in Anglo-American media? Why were they referred to as a separate Celtic race rather than simply white Europeans? Why did nativist movements like the Know-Nothings and the second-wave KKK target them specifically?

The claim that British colonialism was the only reason for Irish dehumanization ignores how those same racialized stereotypes followed them to America, where they weren’t initially accepted as equals to Anglo-Americans. Over time, as they assimilated, gained political power, and distanced themselves from Black and non-European populations, they became fully incorporated into whiteness. That process—of gradually being accepted into the dominant racial group—is exactly what “earning whiteness” means. Whiteness has never been just a fixed biological category—it has always been a shifting social construct.

The worst thing about the Irish, I think, is their lack of dignity, as they now feel very proud of being British or belonging to the Anglosphere (like a kind of Stockholm syndrome).

[Grace O'Malley]

The worst thing about the Irish, I think, is their lack of dignity, as they now feel very proud of being British or belonging to the Anglosphere (like a kind of Stockholm syndrome).

Where are you getting that from? The Irish aren't British and don't consider themselves British. In fact if you say Ireland is part of the British Isles they will argue with you against that term when that is just a geographic term.

You're getting confused with Orange men i.e. Unionists in Northern Ireland. No the Irish do not consider themselves British.

[Lard]

No, some cartoons don't actually suggest that, lol. You can find similar memes about various groups on this very forum.



Try looking up some of those legal cases. They were considering the question of whether groups like Hindus, or Arabs were eligible for naturalization. The Irish people's status as whites was never questioned.

You evidently don't understand how the word "race" was often used in the late 19th and early 20th century. Referring to the "Celtic race" was in no sense separating Celts from whites.



The point was to illustrate the mindset i'm talking about, I know Rockwell was after the time you're talking about.



Then it seems odd the American Nazi Party leader would unequivocally say Jews are white.
Your argument is based on modern assumptions about race, rather than how whiteness was historically constructed and contested. The Irish were not simply "poor whites who were discriminated against"—they were explicitly racialized as something distinct from Anglo-Saxons, and this racialization had real social, political, and legal consequences.
1. On the Cartoons & Caricatures:
You dismiss the simian caricatures of the Irish as meaningless, but those depictions weren’t just random jokes—they were part of a broader discourse that positioned the Irish as racially distinct and even non-white in comparison to Anglo-Saxons. If those images weren’t meant to imply a racial distinction, why did they consistently compare the Irish to Africans? If whiteness was never in question, why depict them as fundamentally separate from other Europeans?
2. On Legal Cases Defining Whiteness:
You're wrong to suggest that only non-Europeans were affected by legal questions of whiteness. The Irish, Italians, and other Southern/Eastern Europeans were often racialized in ways that put their full inclusion into whiteness into question. The "Celtic race" wasn’t just a meaningless phrase—it was used to argue that the Irish were biologically distinct from Anglo-Saxons. Even beyond the Irish, there were cases involving Italians, Greeks, and Slavs where courts had to explicitly determine whether they were “white enough” for citizenship.
3. On Rockwell & Jews Being White:
Rockwell saying "Jews are white" doesn’t disprove the idea that whiteness expanded over time—it actually reinforces it. By the mid-20th century, whiteness had fully expanded to include all European groups, which is why Rockwell could acknowledge Jews as white while still excluding them socially and politically. His position reflects how whiteness was flexible—biological whiteness could be acknowledged, but social exclusion could still persist.
Overall, your argument treats whiteness as an eternal, fixed category when history shows that it was a shifting construct that adapted over time. Groups like the Irish weren’t always fully accepted as white, and their eventual inclusion into whiteness wasn’t automatic—it was a process that played out through social, legal, and political changes.

[R1b-L51]

Where are you getting that from? The Irish aren't British and don't consider themselves British. In fact if you say Ireland is part of the British Isles they will argue with you against that term when that is just a geographic term.

You're getting confused with Orange men i.e. Unionists in Northern Ireland. No the Irish do not consider themselves British.

Don't personalize, not everyone thinks like you. Most Irish people are proud Americans or Australians of the Anglosphere, as long as they're not discriminated against...

[Grace O'Malley]

Don't personalize, not everyone thinks like you. Most Irish people are proud Americans or Australians of the Anglosphere, as long as they're not discriminated against...

Your statement was incorrect though. The Irish do not consider themselves British and point out correctly that they are an independent country. It is only the Protestant community in Northern Ireland that emphasise their Britishness.

[Lard]

The idea that the Irish were always considered white completely ignores the historical reality of how they were treated, not just through discrimination but through outright attempts at genocide. The way the British systematically brutalized the Irish—through slavery, forced displacement, and famine policies—shows that they were not seen as equals to Anglo-Saxons, either socially or racially.
Irish Slavery and Forced Exile:
During the 17th century, tens of thousands of Irish were sold into slavery and indentured servitude, particularly in the Caribbean. Cromwell’s forces ethnically cleansed Ireland, massacring towns, confiscating land, and deporting Irish men, women, and children to colonies like Barbados and Montserrat, where they were treated as white Negroes—a racialized underclass used for brutal labor. British records describe them as a "vile race," barely better than Africans. If they were simply seen as “white,” why were they enslaved and dehumanized like non-Europeans?
The Great Famine as Genocide:
The Great Irish Famine (1845–1852) is another clear example of the Irish being treated as an expendable people. The British government continued exporting food out of Ireland while millions starved, viewing the famine as a way to "thin out" the Irish population. Figures like Charles Trevelyan, who oversaw British policy, saw it as a form of divine punishment for an inferior people. If the Irish were truly considered white, why did the British aristocracy treat their suffering as natural rather than a humanitarian crisis?
The Irish as a Racialized Underclass:
Beyond these events, British and American discourse consistently racialized the Irish as something distinct from Anglo-Saxons. They were called a “mongrel race,” depicted in caricatures as ape-like, and compared to Africans in their supposed primitiveness. If whiteness was just about skin color, why did the Anglo elite go to such lengths to separate themselves from the Irish through racial language, forced displacement, and extermination policies?
The history of Irish suffering is not just a story of discrimination—it’s proof that whiteness, as a rigid social construct, was something that the Irish had to earn over time. It wasn’t freely granted to them by the Anglo world that saw them as subhuman for centuries.

[King Camelot]

The worst thing about the Irish, I think, is their lack of dignity, as they now feel very proud of being British or belonging to the Anglosphere (like a kind of Stockholm syndrome).


Where are you getting that from? The Irish aren't British and don't consider themselves British. In fact if you say Ireland is part of the British Isles they will argue with you against that term when that is just a geographic term.

You're getting confused with Orange men i.e. Unionists in Northern Ireland. No the Irish do not consider themselves British.

Tis I, King Camelot, come to right a grievous wrong. Let it be known that the fair folk of Éire, those noble sons and daughters of Hibernia, are and have ever been the purest embodiment of European whiteness. To suggest otherwise is naught but foolishness, a jest fit only for court jesters and fools.

By my royal decree, I do hereby bestow upon the Irish the rightful mantle of whiteness, for they have borne the burden of cultural oppression and yet emerged as shining beacons of racial purity. Let the land rejoice, for the Emerald Isle shall henceforth be recognized as a paragon of European ancestry, and all those who question this truth shall be cast out as mischievous knaves. So be it proclaimed throughout the realm, that the Irish are white, and ever shall remain so. Long live the king, and may the Leprechauns dance a jig of joy at this most auspicious pronouncement!

[Lard]

I'm 1/8th Irish myself, so these are also my people.

[Smeagol]

Your argument is based on modern assumptions about race, rather than how whiteness was historically constructed and contested. The Irish were not simply "poor whites who were discriminated against"—they were explicitly racialized as something distinct from Anglo-Saxons, and this racialization had real social, political, and legal consequences.
1. On the Cartoons & Caricatures:
You dismiss the simian caricatures of the Irish as meaningless, but those depictions weren’t just random jokes—they were part of a broader discourse that positioned the Irish as racially distinct and even non-white in comparison to Anglo-Saxons. If those images weren’t meant to imply a racial distinction, why did they consistently compare the Irish to Africans? If whiteness was never in question, why depict them as fundamentally separate from other Europeans?
2. On Legal Cases Defining Whiteness:
You're wrong to suggest that only non-Europeans were affected by legal questions of whiteness. The Irish, Italians, and other Southern/Eastern Europeans were often racialized in ways that put their full inclusion into whiteness into question. The "Celtic race" wasn’t just a meaningless phrase—it was used to argue that the Irish were biologically distinct from Anglo-Saxons. Even beyond the Irish, there were cases involving Italians, Greeks, and Slavs where courts had to explicitly determine whether they were “white enough” for citizenship.
3. On Rockwell & Jews Being White:
Rockwell saying "Jews are white" doesn’t disprove the idea that whiteness expanded over time—it actually reinforces it. By the mid-20th century, whiteness had fully expanded to include all European groups, which is why Rockwell could acknowledge Jews as white while still excluding them socially and politically. His position reflects how whiteness was flexible—biological whiteness could be acknowledged, but social exclusion could still persist.
Overall, your argument treats whiteness as an eternal, fixed category when history shows that it was a shifting construct that adapted over time. Groups like the Irish weren’t always fully accepted as white, and their eventual inclusion into whiteness wasn’t automatic—it was a process that played out through social, legal, and political changes.

It's you who's getting confused by modern leftist assumptions about race and just keeps repeating that since Irish (and others) were not immediately treated as equals by native-born Americans they were somehow seen as something other than white.

Find me one case where the whiteness of the Irish was legally questioned, and I'll acknowledge you might have an argument.

[King Camelot]

The idea that the Irish were always considered white completely ignores the historical reality of how they were treated, not just through discrimination but through outright attempts at genocide. The way the British systematically brutalized the Irish—through slavery, forced displacement, and famine policies—shows that they were not seen as equals to Anglo-Saxons, either socially or racially.
Irish Slavery and Forced Exile:
During the 17th century, tens of thousands of Irish were sold into slavery and indentured servitude, particularly in the Caribbean. Cromwell’s forces ethnically cleansed Ireland, massacring towns, confiscating land, and deporting Irish men, women, and children to colonies like Barbados and Montserrat, where they were treated as white Negroes—a racialized underclass used for brutal labor. British records describe them as a "vile race," barely better than Africans. If they were simply seen as “white,” why were they enslaved and dehumanized like non-Europeans?
The Great Famine as Genocide:
The Great Irish Famine (1845–1852) is another clear example of the Irish being treated as an expendable people. The British government continued exporting food out of Ireland while millions starved, viewing the famine as a way to "thin out" the Irish population. Figures like Charles Trevelyan, who oversaw British policy, saw it as a form of divine punishment for an inferior people. If the Irish were truly considered white, why did the British aristocracy treat their suffering as natural rather than a humanitarian crisis?
The Irish as a Racialized Underclass:
Beyond these events, British and American discourse consistently racialized the Irish as something distinct from Anglo-Saxons. They were called a “mongrel race,” depicted in caricatures as ape-like, and compared to Africans in their supposed primitiveness. If whiteness was just about skin color, why did the Anglo elite go to such lengths to separate themselves from the Irish through racial language, forced displacement, and extermination policies?
The history of Irish suffering is not just a story of discrimination—it’s proof that whiteness, as a rigid social construct, was something that the Irish had to earn over time. It wasn’t freely granted to them by the Anglo world that saw them as subhuman for centuries.

'Tis with heavy heart that I must needs dispute this dour recital of our dear Irish brethren's travails, for it doth besmirch the fair name of Albion and the noble Saxon race. Whilst I doth acknowledge the hardships endured by those sons and daughters of Erin, I prithee consider the matter with a broader lens, lest we fall prey to the insidious snare of reductionism. Though the plight of the Irish is indeed lamentable, 'twould be most erroneous to equate their suffering with a lack of whiteness, or to brandish it as evidence of exclusion from the hallowed halls of European ancestry. Nay, the cruel machinations of politics and conquest have oft wrought misery upon those deemed "other," regardless of their hue or creed. As for the matter of slavery, indentured servitude hath long been a scourge upon the working class, afflicting many a European soul. 'Twas not unique to the Irish, nor a symptom of racial othering, but rather the cruel consequence of poverty and desperation.

[R1b-L51]

Your statement was incorrect though. The Irish do not consider themselves British and point out correctly that they are an independent country. It is only the Protestant community in Northern Ireland that emphasise their Britishness.

They don't support the English, no... they just speak their language, buy their products, cook the same food, have the same Anglo-Saxon subsidiaries and companies, follow the same sports (and I'll even say they celebrate the same holidays because now all Anglophiles celebrate St. Patrick's Day).

It's something similar to the Catalans, armchair nationalism.

And obviously I think the same as I do about the Basque terrorists: if you have to kill someone, at least do it head-on, not by planting bombs that kill children.

No Irish person is really willing to make concessions to regain their royal sovereignty. Look, in this case, the Portuguese are more honest and act the way they think.

But everyone has the right to feel special, of course...but don't tell me that, I am a very critical person also with my own countrymen, where the CIA and Freemasonry have destroyed our country to turn it into a whorehouse and a mockery.

[R1b-L51]

Tis I, King Camelot, come to right a grievous wrong. Let it be known that the fair folk of Éire, those noble sons and daughters of Hibernia, are and have ever been the purest embodiment of European whiteness. To suggest otherwise is naught but foolishness, a jest fit only for court jesters and fools.

By my royal decree, I do hereby bestow upon the Irish the rightful mantle of whiteness, for they have borne the burden of cultural oppression and yet emerged as shining beacons of racial purity. Let the land rejoice, for the Emerald Isle shall henceforth be recognized as a paragon of European ancestry, and all those who question this truth shall be cast out as mischievous knaves. So be it proclaimed throughout the realm, that the Irish are white, and ever shall remain so. Long live the king, and may the Leprechauns dance a jig of joy at this most auspicious pronouncement!

Interesting Sir, you have Tolkienian potential.

[Lard]

It's you who's getting confused by modern leftist assumptions about race and just keeps repeating that since Irish (and others) were not immediately treated as equals by native-born Americans they were somehow seen as something other than white.

Find me one case where the whiteness of the Irish was legally questioned, and I'll acknowledge you might have an argument.

Your entire argument is based on the false assumption that whiteness has always been a fixed, unquestioned category rather than a shifting social construct that evolved over time. You're also moving the goalposts—first, you dismissed the racialized caricatures of the Irish, then you ignored the clear historical evidence of their dehumanization, and now you're demanding a legal case as if that’s the only valid proof of racial exclusion.
1. Whiteness Was Not Just a Legal Category, It Was a Social Hierarchy;
You're asking for a court case, but whiteness wasn’t just defined in legal documents—it was a lived social reality. The Irish were repeatedly described as a separate, inferior race in both Britain and America. They were caricatured as simian, compared to Africans, and spoken of as biologically distinct from Anglo-Saxons. If the Irish were always fully white, why did contemporary Anglo writers explicitly describe them in racialized terms?
2. Irish Slavery and the Great Famine as Racialized Exclusion:
Legal status doesn’t override historical reality. The British forcibly deported the Irish into slavery in the Caribbean, referring to them as “savages” and “white Negroes.” During the Irish Famine, British officials openly said the mass starvation was a natural correction for an inferior people. If the Irish were seen as simply “white,” why were they treated as an expendable racial underclass rather than as fellow Europeans?
3. The Legal Argument is a Strawman:
You claim there was never a legal case questioning Irish whiteness, but that ignores the broader legal and political structures that racialized them. The Irish may not have been explicitly barred from citizenship, but they were still denied equal treatment, violently targeted by nativist groups, and viewed as an ethnic "other" by Anglo-Americans. Whiteness as a category has always been flexible—being legally white didn’t necessarily mean being socially white.
4. Historical Context Proves You Wrong:
If whiteness was so obvious, why did the Irish have to assimilate and distance themselves from Black Americans to gain full inclusion? Why did nativist groups like the Know-Nothings and the KKK target them alongside non-whites? If there was never a question of their whiteness, why did so many Anglo-Americans treat them as a separate and undesirable racial group for decades?
5. Your Ideological Cop-Out: Calling Historical Fact a "Modern Leftist Assumption":
Your whole approach is intellectually dishonest. You're painting historical fact as a “modern leftist assumption about race,” as though acknowledging the massive discrimination against the Irish and their struggle to be mainstreamed into whiteness is some kind of liberal talking point, while conservatives are supposed to feverishly deny it. That’s absurd.
History is what it is. The Irish were racialized as something separate from Anglo-Saxons, depicted as simian and primitive, denied jobs, and targeted by nativist violence. Their eventual acceptance into whiteness wasn’t automatic—it was a process that happened over time as they assimilated, gained political power, and distanced themselves from Black and non-European populations.
Dismissing all this as a "modern leftist assumption" is just an excuse to ignore inconvenient historical realities. If you actually looked at the historical record instead of treating it as an ideological battlefield, you’d see that whiteness was not a fixed, eternal category. The Irish weren’t always considered part of it in the same way as Anglo-Saxons—they became fully white through assimilation and shifting social boundaries.
That’s not some leftist talking point—it’s just history.

[Smeagol]

Your entire argument is based on the false assumption that whiteness has always been a fixed, unquestioned category rather than a shifting social construct that evolved over time. You're also moving the goalposts—first, you dismissed the racialized caricatures of the Irish, then you ignored the clear historical evidence of their dehumanization, and now you're demanding a legal case as if that’s the only valid proof of racial exclusion.
1. Whiteness Was Not Just a Legal Category, It Was a Social Hierarchy;
You're asking for a court case, but whiteness wasn’t just defined in legal documents—it was a lived social reality. The Irish were repeatedly described as a separate, inferior race in both Britain and America. They were caricatured as simian, compared to Africans, and spoken of as biologically distinct from Anglo-Saxons. If the Irish were always fully white, why did contemporary Anglo writers explicitly describe them in racialized terms?
2. Irish Slavery and the Great Famine as Racialized Exclusion:
Legal status doesn’t override historical reality. The British forcibly deported the Irish into slavery in the Caribbean, referring to them as “savages” and “white Negroes.” During the Irish Famine, British officials openly said the mass starvation was a natural correction for an inferior people. If the Irish were seen as simply “white,” why were they treated as an expendable racial underclass rather than as fellow Europeans?
3. The Legal Argument is a Strawman:
You claim there was never a legal case questioning Irish whiteness, but that ignores the broader legal and political structures that racialized them. The Irish may not have been explicitly barred from citizenship, but they were still denied equal treatment, violently targeted by nativist groups, and viewed as an ethnic "other" by Anglo-Americans. Whiteness as a category has always been flexible—being legally white didn’t necessarily mean being socially white.
4. Historical Context Proves You Wrong:
If whiteness was so obvious, why did the Irish have to assimilate and distance themselves from Black Americans to gain full inclusion? Why did nativist groups like the Know-Nothings and the KKK target them alongside non-whites? If there was never a question of their whiteness, why did so many Anglo-Americans treat them as a separate and undesirable racial group for decades?
5. Your Ideological Cop-Out: Calling Historical Fact a "Modern Leftist Assumption":
Your whole approach is intellectually dishonest. You're painting historical fact as a “modern leftist assumption about race,” as though acknowledging the massive discrimination against the Irish and their struggle to be mainstreamed into whiteness is some kind of liberal talking point, while conservatives are supposed to feverishly deny it. That’s absurd.
History is what it is. The Irish were racialized as something separate from Anglo-Saxons, depicted as simian and primitive, denied jobs, and targeted by nativist violence. Their eventual acceptance into whiteness wasn’t automatic—it was a process that happened over time as they assimilated, gained political power, and distanced themselves from Black and non-European populations.
Dismissing all this as a "modern leftist assumption" is just an excuse to ignore inconvenient historical realities. If you actually looked at the historical record instead of treating it as an ideological battlefield, you’d see that whiteness was not a fixed, eternal category. The Irish weren’t always considered part of it in the same way as Anglo-Saxons—they became fully white through assimilation and shifting social boundaries.
That’s not some leftist talking point—it’s just history.

So there's no such case for obvious reasons. Ok, thanks for confirming.

[Smeagol]

"Why did nativist groups like the Know-Nothings and the KKK target them"

...Because they weren't native (and Catholic)?

[Grace O'Malley]

They don't support the English, no... they just speak their language, buy their products, cook the same food, have the same Anglo-Saxon subsidiaries and companies, follow the same sports (and I'll even say they celebrate the same holidays because now all Anglophiles celebrate St. Patrick's Day).

It's something similar to the Catalans, armchair nationalism.

And obviously I think the same as the Basque terrorists: if you have to kill someone, at least do it head-on, not by planting bombs that kill children.

No Irish person is really willing to make concessions to regain their royal sovereignty. Look, in this case, the Portuguese are more honest and act the way they think.

But everyone has the right to feel special, of course...but don't tell me that, I am a very critical person also with my own countrymen, where the CIA and Freemasonry have destroyed our country to turn it into a whorehouse and a mockery.

Ireland has always been a separate island with a distinct culture. It was colonised by Britain with the Anglo-Norman invasion in 1169. Ireland gained independence of 26 counties in 1922. Irish were always treated distinctly from than English. As I've pointed out your previous statement was erroneous. The Irish do not consider themselves British.

[Lard]

"Why did nativist groups like the Know-Nothings and the KKK target them"

...Because they weren't native (and Catholic)?

Your response is weak, and it’s telling that instead of addressing the actual argument, you cherry-picked one sentence and ignored the rest of my post. If my argument was so flawed, why didn’t you engage with the points about Irish slavery, the Great Famine, the racialized depictions of the Irish, or the broader discussion on how whiteness was a shifting category?

And your response—"Because they weren’t native?"—is laughably simplistic. The Know-Nothings and the KKK didn’t just oppose the Irish because they were immigrants. They specifically targeted Irish Catholics, depicting them as an invasive, inferior race that was unfit to be part of American society. If it were purely about being foreign-born, why weren’t all European immigrants treated the same way? The Irish weren’t simply discriminated against for being newcomers; they were seen as racially distinct and biologically inferior to Anglo-Saxons.

You conveniently ignore the racial language used against the Irish, their depiction as "white Negroes," and the fact that Anglo-Americans explicitly questioned whether they belonged to the same racial category. If the Irish were always considered fully white, why did they have to fight for inclusion? Why were they compared to Africans? Why were they not immediately absorbed into Anglo-American whiteness like the Germans and Scandinavians?

Your refusal to engage with the full argument only proves my point—you don’t actually have a real counterargument.

[Your Old Comrade]

They don't support the English, no... they just speak their language, buy their products, cook the same food, have the same Anglo-Saxon subsidiaries and companies, follow the same sports (and I'll even say they celebrate the same holidays because now all Anglophiles celebrate St. Patrick's Day).

It's something similar to the Catalans, armchair nationalism.

And obviously I think the same as I do about the Basque terrorists: if you have to kill someone, at least do it head-on, not by planting bombs that kill children.

No Irish person is really willing to make concessions to regain their royal sovereignty. Look, in this case, the Portuguese are more honest and act the way they think.

But everyone has the right to feel special, of course...but don't tell me that, I am a very critical person also with my own countrymen, where the CIA and Freemasonry have destroyed our country to turn it into a whorehouse and a mockery.

I agree in a few things, yes. I think Ireland should definetely adoot continental standards, demonstratively switch to driving on the right, replace common law with civil law, getting rid of British-style school uniforms and, when the time is there, replace old working class neighbourhoods dating back to the British era with modern housing with a nod to traditional Irish architecture, scrapping the Anglo-style economic system in favour of a modern Nordic model and maybe even replacing the motorway signage with something less British-looking.

[R1b-L51]

Ireland has always been a separate island with a distinct culture. It was colonised by Britain with the Anglo-Norman invasion in 1169. Ireland gained independence of 26 counties in 1922. Irish were always treated distinctly from than English. As I've pointed out your previous statement was erroneous. The Irish do not consider themselves British.

Yes, I already know the history of Ireland, I'm just saying what I see with these eyes that God has given me.

[R1b-L51]

I agree in a few things, yes. I think Ireland should definetely adoot continental standards, demonstratively switch to driving on the right, replace common law with civil law, getting rid of British-style school uniforms and, when the time is there, replace old working class neighbourhoods dating back to the British era with modern housing with a nod to traditional Irish architecture, scrapping the Anglo-style economic system in favour of a modern Nordic model and maybe even replacing the motorway signage with something less British-looking.

Frankly, I can't reach that point. I'm not going to be the one to say what they should or shouldn't do, but it's virtually a part of England, whether they like it or not.

[Smeagol]

Your refusal to engage with the full argument only proves my point—you don’t actually have a real counterargument.

The problem is you don't have an argument. Nothing you're repeating is actually disputing the fact that the Irish were white. If it was so self-evident to everyone that they weren't, why was their whiteness never legally questioned?

[Grace O'Malley]

Yes, I already know the history of Ireland, I'm just saying what I see with these eyes that God has given me.

So you have decided. The Irish do not consider themselves British and they were never British. Britain is a separate island. If I say the Catalonians aren't Spanish would I be correct?

However the Irish don't consider themselves British and they aren't considered British. The Irish are in the EU for example and the British aren't. If you have an Irish passport you can travel and work in the EU. If you are British you can't. Someone saying the Irish are British does not make it fact.

[Lard]

The problem is you don't have an argument. Nothing you're repeating is actually disputing the fact that the Irish were white. If it was so self-evident to everyone that they weren't, why was their whiteness never legally questioned?

You're fixated on legal classification as the sole determinant of racial status, but even white women, who were legally classified as white from the start, were the very last group to get the vote in the U.S. under the 19th Amendment in 1920. If being legally white automatically meant full inclusion and privilege, then why did it take so long for white women to gain basic political rights?

This proves that legal whiteness alone didn’t equate to full societal acceptance or power—social hierarchies and exclusionary systems still applied within the so-called "white" category. The same principle applies to the Irish. Even if they were legally considered white, they were socially and politically marginalized, racialized as inferior, and treated as outsiders who had to prove their worth before being fully accepted into whiteness.

The fact that you're demanding a legal case questioning their whiteness completely misses the point—legal status doesn’t always reflect the lived reality of racial hierarchies.

[Smeagol]

You're fixated on legal classification as the sole determinant of racial status, but even white women, who were legally classified as white from the start, were the very last group to get the vote in the U.S. under the 19th Amendment in 1920. If being legally white automatically meant full inclusion and privilege, then why did it take so long for white women to gain basic political rights?

This proves that legal whiteness alone didn’t equate to full societal acceptance or power—social hierarchies and exclusionary systems still applied within the so-called "white" category. The same principle applies to the Irish. Even if they were legally considered white, they were socially and politically marginalized, racialized as inferior, and treated as outsiders who had to prove their worth before being fully accepted into whiteness.

The fact that you're demanding a legal case questioning their whiteness completely misses the point—legal status doesn’t always reflect the lived reality of racial hierarchies.

What you're incredibly still failing to get is that white is a biological racial status, not a social status. There was a hierarchy among what 19th and early 20th century writers called "the white races." That white women didn't have the same rights as white men just further proves my point. No one ever claimed white women weren't white.

[Lard]

I'm getting tired here and taking a snooze.
I apologize to the OP of this thread, AndreiDNA, for going off the rails from 'The Natufians Were White' to an exchange about Irish whiteness.
Didn’t expect to take this detour, but here we are...:picard1:

[R1b-L51]

So you have decided. The Irish do not consider themselves British and they were never British. Britain is a separate island. If I say the Catalonians aren't Spanish would I be correct?

However the Irish don't consider themselves British and they aren't considered British. The Irish are in the EU for example and the British aren't. If you have an Irish passport you can travel and work in the EU. If you are British you can't. Someone saying the Irish are British does not make it fact.

The example isn't a good one because it's exactly the opposite of what you're trying to demonstrate: two populations that are so genetically close and have the same culture are virtually the same.
Just like Russia and Ukraine.

The opposite would be the case, for example, between Morocco and Spain, because although they may be very close, they are genetically and culturally very different.

Okay, you don't like what I'm saying (that's another thing), but I don't see any notable difference between a British person and an Irish person, and you also have the same king.

[R1b-L51]

I'm getting tired here and taking a snooze.
I apologize to the OP of this thread, AndreiDNA, for going off the rails from 'The Natufians Were White' to an exchange about Irish whiteness.
Didn’t expect to take this detour, but here we are...:picard1:

We can also discuss whether the people of San Marino are Italian or the Andorrans are Iberian... excellent discussions to finish sleeping.

[Grace O'Malley]

The example isn't a good one because it's exactly the opposite of what you're trying to demonstrate: two populations that are so genetically close and have the same culture are virtually the same.
Just like Russia and Ukraine.

The opposite would be the case, for example, between Morocco and Spain, because although they may be very close, they are genetically and culturally very different.

Okay, you don't like what I'm saying (that's another thing), but I don't see any notable difference between a British person and an Irish person, and you also have the same king.

It's not a matter of liking or not it's just factual. The Irish are not British. They were once part of the United Kingdom but now most of Ireland is an independent country. The Irish however were never British because they are a separate island and not part of Britain. Even when Ireland was part of the United Kingdom there was still a separate Irish identity. Are the Irish Dutch because they are genetically close? Are Gibraltarians the same as the English because they are a British territory? Were the Jamaicans the same as the British because they were a British territory?

No Irishmen has issues with their identity. If you don't understand it that doesn't change the fact that the Irish are not British. Anyone can have personal opinions it doesn't mean they are backed up by fact. Ireland is a separate country from Britain. You can't change facts. It's the same with discussions about whether the Irish were seen as white. Well yes they were because they were always legally white. The Irish have always been seen as separate to English. In the 1800s they were regarded as citizens of the United Kingdom because Britain controlled Ireland however British just means a citizen of the United Kingdom. You can be Welsh and British and Scottish and British. You can be Jamaican and British. The Irish however ceased being British when they left the UK. Even today it is Great Britain and Northern Ireland. See passport below.

https://static.euronews.com/articles/stories/07/00/58/36/1440x810_cmsv2_9925e9b0-0b5e-5f0b-ba1c-0a27e6572d84-7005836.jpg

[R1b-L51]

It's not a matter of liking or not it's just factual. The Irish are not British. They were once part of the United Kingdom but now most of Ireland is an independent country. The Irish however were never British because they are a separate island and not part of Britain. Even when Ireland was part of the United Kingdom there was still a separate Irish identity. Are the Irish Dutch because they are genetically close? Are Gibraltarians the same as the English because they are a British territory? Were the Jamaicans the same as the British because they were a British territory?

No Irishmen has issues with their identity. If you don't understand it that doesn't change the fact that the Irish are not British. Anyone can have personal opinions it doesn't mean they are backed up by fact. Ireland is a separate country from Britain. You can't change facts. It's the same with discussions about whether the Irish were seen as white. Well yes they were because they were always legally white. The Irish have always been seen as separate to English. In the 1800s they were regarded as citizens of the United Kingdom because Britain controlled Ireland however British just means a citizen of the United Kingdom. You can be Welsh and British and Scottish and British. You can be Jamaican and British. The Irish however ceased being British when they left the UK. Even today it is Great Britain and Northern Ireland. See passport below.

https://static.euronews.com/articles/stories/07/00/58/36/1440x810_cmsv2_9925e9b0-0b5e-5f0b-ba1c-0a27e6572d84-7005836.jpg

Forgive me for having some eggs with Iberian ham during this vigil interlude while I finish my work.

What you and our friend Conrado are doing is simply not right.

You see, the fact that someone from the outside tells you that you're virtually the same should be taken with more courage than your own internal opinion (you know the myth of Plato's cave).

The funniest thing is that probably when you see an African, you consider him exactly the same as any other African (and that's where morals don't matter).

When I see you, I see a British girl (yes, a little more exotic, or Riordan, but for me, Riordan is also British).

And I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

By the way, I didn't say the Irish are English, only that in addition to being physically similar (more so than the Dutch), they also share an almost identical culture.

Therefore, to me, they are virtually the same, just like Ukraine and Russia, or Malta and southern Italy.

I'm sorry if you don't like my opinion, but honesty should always be appreciated.

[Grace O'Malley]

Forgive me for having some eggs with Iberian ham during this vigil interlude while I finish my work.

What you and our friend Conrado are doing is simply not right.

You see, the fact that someone from the outside tells you that you're virtually the same should be taken with more courage than your own internal opinion (you know the myth of Plato's cave).

The funniest thing is that probably when you see an African, you consider him exactly the same as any other African (and that's where morals don't matter).

When I see you, I see a British girl (yes, a little more exotic, or Riordan, but for me, Riordan is also British).

And I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

By the way, I didn't say the Irish are English, only that in addition to being physically similar (more so than the Dutch), they also share an almost identical culture.

Therefore, to me, they are virtually the same, just like Ukraine and Russia, or Malta and southern Italy.

I'm sorry if you don't like my opinion, but honesty should always be appreciated.

It doesn't matter what you see someone as. What matters is that Ireland is recognised as an independent country and a different entity than Britain. Next you'll be claiming that Latvians are Russian because they were part of the USSR. Your opinion is just that and not something that will carry any weight legally. In Britain the Irish are not seen as British and in Ireland the British are not seen as Irish. The only exception would be Northern Ireland. They are unique in that they are considered both British and Irish and can have citizenship in both jurisdictions. This is due to 6 counties in Northern Ireland being a part of the United Kingdom. Even in Northern Ireland Irish Catholics were always discriminated against and treated differently by the once Unionist majority (i.e. Protestant community who were descended from mostly Scottish and English who were part of the Plantation of Ulster). This was the reason for "The Troubles" when Irish Catholics started protesting and demanding equal rights. This came to a conclusion when the British and Irish with the support of the United States made The Good Friday Agreement which recognised that the Northern Irish could chose to be Irish or British and if they chose could vote to become part of Ireland so the Irish Government gave up their territorial claims to Northern Ireland because of this agreement. This is why because of Brexit the border between Northern Ireland and Britain is down the Irish Sea and not on the island of Ireland. It is one of those unique situations that would not happen if the Irish were just British. :thumb001:

[Gannicus]

Wow, this totally got derailed. It was an interesting video. I'm curious to know what the p-values were in those runs.

[Purple Panther]

Whiteness is a modern construct, born out of colonialism and the slave trade to create a racial hierarchy that justified oppression. It didn’t exist in the ancient world—the idea of being “white” only emerged around the 16th century as a tool to maintain European dominance.

The concept of race, including whiteness, was invented to divide people and consolidate power. Whiteness became tied to privilege and rights in societies built on slavery and colonialism—systems that relied on creating and enforcing racial categories.

The New World played a key role in this, with Europeans defining themselves as superior while labeling others as inferior based on these constructed racial categories. This wasn’t about biology—it was about creating and sustaining a system of inequality. Whiteness, as we understand it, is rooted in power structures, not any inherent trait.

"White" is an amorphous term with no fixed boundaries, and it can be stretched like clay to fit one's subjective opinions on a wide range of things. I'm no big fan of Coon's taxonomy, which seems a bit like phrenology at times, but I still like the "antiquated" racial categories that offend woke people even when no claims of racial superiority are made, and it's clear that "Negroid" would make their heads explode, although that term makes more sense than "Black" (a second political and social construct) because many Black people have much lighter skin than many White people. I use "Caucasoid" in lieu of "White", and I use the "horribly offensive" "Mongoloid" too like the 1965 anthropology fan that I am. People freak out when I call Vivek Ramaswamy White.

[Purple Panther]

Yes they were discriminated against but having had this come up numerous times I've read a lot of literature on the topic, they were never considered not white. The Irish for example were considered Celtic by the British and the Celts were considered lesser than the Anglo-Saxons however they were still considered a part of the white group. Being white doesn't mean you won't be discriminated against. The main problem with the Irish was their Catholicism.

This is very true. Of course, it could be that my immigrant ancestors, from Ireland, went from Black to White when they converted from Catholicism to Protestantism, thus discarding their genetic Irishness too.

[Purple Panther]

"Why did nativist groups like the Know-Nothings and the KKK target them"

...Because they weren't native (and Catholic)?

My ancestors, from the Republic of Ireland, were indistinguishable from the rest of my White ancestors when they converted to Protestantism. They definitely weren't seen like Eddie Murphy or Shaquille O'Neill.

[Grace O'Malley]

This is very true. Of course, it could be that my immigrant ancestors, from Ireland, went from Black to White when they converted from Catholicism to Protestantism, thus discarding their genetic Irishness too.

People can look at old US Census records. The Irish were never seen as not white. It would be odd if they weren't viewed as white in comparison to English or any other ethnicity when it is obvious they are Europeans. These aren't my relatives but just examples of the US Census from the 1800s and anyone can access this information.

https://i.postimg.cc/g0RbhftW/Screenshot-2025-03-12-131321.png

https://i.postimg.cc/d1vpyDT2/Screenshot-2025-03-12-131426.png

Irish were seen as white because what else could they be seen as? They weren't black and weren't non-European. There was prejudice against them because the US was after all a British colony originally and this Irish discrimination was just a carry on from the discrimination of Irish in Ireland by the British. It wasn't because they were viewed as non-white.

[R1b-L51]

It doesn't matter what you see someone as. What matters is that Ireland is recognised as an independent country and a different entity than Britain. Next you'll be claiming that Latvians are Russian because they were part of the USSR. Your opinion is just that and not something that will carry any weight legally. In Britain the Irish are not seen as British and in Ireland the British are not seen as Irish. The only exception would be Northern Ireland. They are unique in that they are considered both British and Irish and can have citizenship in both jurisdictions. This is due to 6 counties in Northern Ireland being a part of the United Kingdom. Even in Northern Ireland Irish Catholics were always discriminated against and treated differently by the once Unionist majority (i.e. Protestant community who were descended from mostly Scottish and English who were part of the Plantation of Ulster). This was the reason for "The Troubles" when Irish Catholics started protesting and demanding equal rights. This came to a conclusion when the British and Irish with the support of the United States made The Good Friday Agreement which recognised that the Northern Irish could chose to be Irish or British and if they chose could vote to become part of Ireland so the Irish Government gave up their territorial claims to Northern Ireland because of this agreement. This is why because of Brexit the border between Northern Ireland and Britain is down the Irish Sea and not on the island of Ireland. It is one of those unique situations that would not happen if the Irish were just British. :thumb001:

Yes, but all this nonsense pales in the eyes of God, and why not say it even about something as trivial as genetics?

When it comes down to it, the United States simply did its job, disuniting Great Britain so that now you (or, well, maybe not you, because I have no idea where you're from) eat out of its damn hand.

But that doesn't make you any different from a slightly more exotic Englishwoman, and probably, depending on the individual in question, not even that.

Your Irish nationality is just a piece of paper; people don't understand these things.

For example, Spain existed before there was a Constitution, and even before we separated from Portugal. Things are the way they are naturally, not as a piece of paper says.

And if tomorrow there is no longer a Constitution (which is not being complied with), and there is no longer a welfare state and we all kill each other, Spain will still exist as a geographical and ethnic reality, and that is exactly what is happening with Great Britain, whether you like it or not.

[King Camelot]

People can look at old US Census records. The Irish were never seen as not white. It would be odd if they weren't viewed as white in comparison to English or any other ethnicity when if is obvious. These aren't my relatives but just examples of the US Census from the 1800s and anyone can access this information.

https://i.postimg.cc/g0RbhftW/Screenshot-2025-03-12-131321.png

https://i.postimg.cc/d1vpyDT2/Screenshot-2025-03-12-131426.png

Irish were seen as white because what else could they be seen as? They weren't black and weren't non-European. There was prejudice against them because the US was after all a British colony originally and this Irish discrimination was just a carry on from the discrimination of Irish in Ireland by the British. It wasn't because they were viewed as non-white.

Fair lady Grace, I must needs commend thee on thy sharp wit and keen intellect, for 'tis clear that thou art possessed of a most sagacious mind. Yet, prithee, I wouldst beg thy indulgence, for it seemeth that thou hast ventured somewhat astray from the path of our discourse. 'Twas the history of the Natufians, that ancient people of the Levant, that we didst seek to explore. Yet thou hast led us, like wayward travelers, into the verdant hills and dales of Hibernia, where the tales of the Irish doth hold sway. Fear not, gentle Grace, for such digressions are but the natural ebb and flow of conversation, and 'tis no grievous fault to wander from the appointed course. Yet, mayhap we might now return, like Odysseus to Ithaca, to the shores of Natufian history, and continue our voyage of discovery.

[Jased]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Irish weren't consider white, even Spanish weren't specially when the Anglo settlement was moving towards west and parts of Northern Mexico where historically the majority of Spaniards have always been concentrated there.


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQqGanSjNpCMHeImXEEuWkz-odFV1YbvWwT9V2G369QdITWasQspOVQKpM&s=10

[Grace O'Malley]

The argument that the Irish "were always white" ignores the historical reality of how race was socially constructed and applied in different ways over time. Yes, discrimination and social class played a role, but the Irish weren’t just seen as a poor, lower-class group—they were explicitly racialized as something separate from Anglo-Saxons, often compared to Africans and depicted as subhuman in ways that went beyond simple class discrimination.

If whiteness was just about "looking white," then why were the Irish portrayed as simian and more ape than man in Anglo-American media? Why were they referred to as a separate Celtic race rather than simply white Europeans? Why did nativist movements like the Know-Nothings and the second-wave KKK target them specifically?

The claim that British colonialism was the only reason for Irish dehumanization ignores how those same racialized stereotypes followed them to America, where they weren’t initially accepted as equals to Anglo-Americans. Over time, as they assimilated, gained political power, and distanced themselves from Black and non-European populations, they became fully incorporated into whiteness. That process—of gradually being accepted into the dominant racial group—is exactly what “earning whiteness” means. Whiteness has never been just a fixed biological category—it has always been a shifting social construct.

The depiction of the Irish in cartoons like Punch was political as can be seen in this cartoon called The Irish Tempest. A Fenian Irishman is depicted as ape like while Ireland is depicted as a woman being protected by the British. It is just part of the way to dehumanise the Irish at that time because they were rebelling against the British and a big problem. Even if you were British descent and a Protestant if you were for a United Ireland you were depicted as Ape like.

https://magazine.punch.co.uk/img-get2/I0000tdww8R2mAeg/fit=1000x750/Ireland-Cartoons-Punch-1870-03-19-111.jpg


Punch. Volume 58. March 19, 1870. "The Irish 'Tempest.'" The artist, Sir John Tenniel, has chosen to portray the Irish Fenians as the monstrous Caliban from William Shakespeare's The Tempest. Ireland herself is here the lovely lady Hibernia, protected by British prime minister William Gladstone, here as Shakespeare's magician Prospero. The Irish Land Bill is here Prospero's magic staff, in contention here with Caliban for his claim to the land of Ireland.

The prejudice against the Irish was in large part political. The Irish in the rest of Europe were not discriminated against it was only the British that did this and that was because they wanted to subjugate the Irish.

This is the British Lion and the Irish Monkey

https://magazine.punch.co.uk/img-get/I0000c1E5Q7ELdBI/s/1200/I0000c1E5Q7ELdBI.jpg

John Michell is the man depicted as a monkey. He was of British Planter stock and a Presbyterian but was in support of a United Ireland. This is further proof that the cartoons aren't to do with race.

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

[Grace O'Malley]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Irish weren't consider white, even Spanish weren't specially when the Anglo settlement was moving towards west and parts of Northern Mexico where historically the majority of Spaniards have always been concentrated there.


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQqGanSjNpCMHeImXEEuWkz-odFV1YbvWwT9V2G369QdITWasQspOVQKpM&s=10

This is not true though as has been shown in this thread. Irish and Spanish were viewed as white. You can research Mexicans for yourself. :)

[King Camelot]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Irish weren't consider white, even Spanish weren't specially when the Anglo settlement was moving towards west and parts of Northern Mexico where historically the majority of Spaniards have always been concentrated there.


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQqGanSjNpCMHeImXEEuWkz-odFV1YbvWwT9V2G369QdITWasQspOVQKpM&s=10

The cholo—an enigmatic figure shrouded in the mists of the barrio's labyrinthine streets. His visage, adorned with the emblems of his street cred, speaketh of a life lived on the edge, a dance with danger that few would dare to tread.His ride, a chariot of steel and chrome, glideth through the urban landscape like a wraith, a testament to his mastery of the lowrider's art. And as the beats reverberate through the night, the cholo becometh a prince of his domain, his court a sea of bandanas and tattoos, his subjects loyal and true. Yet, the path of the cholo is not without peril, for the shadows of the gang and the allure of illicit pursuits beckon him with a siren's song. Many a cholo hath fallen prey to these temptations, the price of his pride and defiance an offering to the harsh gods of the street. Truly, the cholo doth embody the essence of the barrio, his very being an amalgam of defiance, resilience, and the ever-present specter of fate's cruel hand.

[R1b-L51]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Irish weren't consider white, even Spanish weren't specially when the Anglo settlement was moving towards west and parts of Northern Mexico where historically the majority Spaniards have always been concentrated there.


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQqGanSjNpCMHeImXEEuWkz-odFV1YbvWwT9V2G369QdITWasQspOVQKpM&s=10

That's completely political and normal. Keep in mind that the Spanish politically and religiously thwarted most of the British plans, for example, by destroying the pirate Drake or the great defeat at Cartagena in the Indies.

But that's purely political; I would never take it into account because they've only been manipulated by their Freemason and Satanist leaders.

In fact, I have a hard time defending Catholicism because it's rotten, but imagine what determinism means as a doctrine. It's the closest thing to the Indian caste system. That's why I understand that these are people who have always been mistreated by their own rulers and therefore have tried (sometimes with little success) to mistreat other nations that ended up accepting all of this as a Stockholm syndrome (think Scotland and Ireland, who no longer know if they are Catholic, Protestant, or Anglican).

[Jased]

This is not true though as has been shown on this thread. Irish and Spanish were viewed as white. You can research Mexicans for yourself. :)

Not sure of Irish but it wasn't for the Spaniards New Spain (Mexico ) by the time of independence there were a million Spaniards (Criollos) and they lived In what's known American south west and North Mexico majority were ranchers and weren't seen as part of the white race

[J. Ketch]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQqGanSjNpCMHeImXEEuWkz-odFV1YbvWwT9V2G369QdITWasQspOVQKpM&s=10
Can we make that the forum banner?

[Grace O'Malley]

Not sure of Irish but it wasn't for the Spaniards New Spain (Mexico ) by the time of independence there were a million Spaniards (Criollos) and they lived In what's known American south west and North Mexico majority were ranchers and weren't seen as part of the white race

You can be sure because of the following. How were the Irish considered not white? People are ignoring that they were always legally white and this has never been questioned. Were they discriminated against as poor and uneducated? Yes they were but they were obviously seen as white because you cannot find any law that states the Irish were non-white.


Law professor David Bernstein has questioned the idea that Irish Americans were once non-white, writing that Irish Americans were "indeed considered white by law and by custom" despite the fact that they experienced "discrimination, hostility, assertions of inferiority and occasionally even violence". Bernstein notes that Irish Americans were not targeted by laws against interracial marriage, were allowed to attend whites-only schools, were classified as white in the Jim Crow South, and were never subjected to anti-Irish immigration restrictions.[39] The sociologists Philip Q. Yang and Kavitha Koshy have also questioned what they call the "becoming white thesis", noting that Irish Americans have been legally classified as white since the first US census in 1790, that Irish Americans were legally white for the purposes of the Naturalization Act of 1790 that limited citizenship to "free White person(s)", and that they could find no legislative or judicial evidence that Irish Americans had ever been considered non-white.[40]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_whiteness_in_the_United_States#cite _note-39

[R1b-L51]

Not sure of Irish but it wasn't for the Spaniards New Spain (Mexico ) by the time of independence there were a million Spaniards (Criollos) and they lived In what's known American south west and North Mexico majority were ranchers and weren't seen as part of the white race

In Spain, there's a type of chorizo ​​called Criollos, which are white.


Y luego está el chorizo de Almendralejo, que las tres primeras rodajas no tienen pellejo....

[Jased]

You can be sure because of the following. How were the Irish considered not white? People are ignoring that they were always legally white and this has never been questioned. Were they discriminated against as poor and uneducated? Yes they were but they were obviously seen as white because you can not find any law that states the Irish were non-white.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_whiteness_in_the_United_States#cite _note-39

The U.S has always had its own definition I read some where Benjamin Franklin only considered Anglos and Germans white, many Italians suffered discrimination when they arrived In NY etc.

Anyway my knowledge Is limited, since myself I'm Hispanophone but I wouldn't be surprised .

[Jased]

In Spain, there's a type of chorizo ​​called Criollos, which are white.


Y luego está el chorizo de Almendralejo, que las tres primeras rodajas no tienen pellejo....

I read when Anglo settlement were moving west and towards territory of Mexico many Anglos view Criollos as undesirable low IQ to view them as white specially when they invaded colonial Texas.

The truth Is we never been friends with our Anglo neighbors.

[Grace O'Malley]

The U.S has always had its own definition I read some where Benjamin Franklin only considered Anglos and Germans white, many Italians suffered discrimination when they arrived In NY etc.

Anyway my knowledge Is limited, since myself I'm Hispanophone but I wouldn't be surprised .

Well by US definitions the Irish were white. Do Irish look non-white? No. From my research no Europeans were considered non-white. That does not mean they didn't face discrimination. This appears to be the problem. It's like people think you can't be white and discriminated against. That if you are white and discriminated against then you had to have been seen as non-white. This however can be shown to be not correct. It is the reason why Irish after a few generations became successful and powerful in their own right. Because they didn't face the legal discrimination that non-whites did. There is a lot of falsehoods posted online these days and people will just copy and repeat what they see posted without any fact checking.

[R1b-L51]

The U.S has always had its own definition I read some where Benjamin Franklin only considered Anglos and Germans white, many Italians suffered discrimination when they arrived In NY etc.

Anyway my knowledge Is limited, since myself I'm Hispanophone but I wouldn't be surprised .

In the United States, it seems that European Spanish are still not white and must expressly indicate this by filling out their race.

But I don't think many Spanish are concerned about this.

https://i.postimg.cc/wydHJB3b/Captura-US.jpg (https://postimg.cc/wydHJB3b)

While it's true that no one is 100% white, or it's very difficult, Spanish can have 5-10% Ibero-Mauritanian genetics, and Saxons could have a similar or even higher percentage but in this case of ANE genetics, which is still Asian.

In my case, I must have both at the same time.

[Jased]

Well by US definitions the Irish were white. Do Irish look non-white? No. From my research no Europeans were considered non-white. That does not mean they didn't face discrimination. This appears to be the problem. It's like people think you can't be white and discriminated against. That if you are white and discriminated against then you had to have been seen as non-white. This however can be shown to be not correct. It is the reason why Irish after a few generations became successful and powerful in their own right. Because they didn't face the legal discrimination that non-whites did. There is a lot of falsehoods posted online these days and people will just copy and repeat what they see posted without any fact checking.

To be honest many Irish look racially ambiguous (not trying to provoke you or anything I like you) remember when the Irish teen was racist to a Mexican tourist in Ireland? Ironically the Mexican looks whiter.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCrRwS7GQ6c&pp=ygUZSXJsYW5kZWFhIHJhY2lzdGEgbWV4aWNubw%3D%3D

[R1b-L51]

I read when Anglo settlement were moving west and towards territory of Mexico many Anglos view Criollos as undesirable low IQ to view them as white specially when they invaded colonial Texas.

The truth Is we never been friends with our Anglo neighbors.

Spain helped the United States achieve independence, especially Bernardo de Gálvez, a hero and military genius. All of this was in revenge for the infiltration of Freemasonry into the former Spanish viceroyalties to achieve independence from within (curiously, through Creoles).

The relationship was never good.

However, many American customs are of Spanish or Mexican origin, for example, outdoor barbecues or the Texas Rangers (formerly the Dragones de Cuera).

[Jased]

Spain helped the United States achieve independence, especially Bernardo de Gálvez, a hero and military genius. All of this was in revenge for the infiltration of Freemasonry into the former Spanish viceroyalties to achieve independence from within (curiously, through Creoles).

The relationship was never good.

However, many American customs are of Spanish or Mexican origin, for example, outdoor barbecues or the Texas Rangers (formerly the Dragones de Cuera).

The Anglosphere and Hispanic world would never united the tentions have always been there from the old world to the New world.

It crashes when you try to put them together why? Because both seek dominance.

[R1b-L51]

Well by US definitions the Irish were white. Do Irish look non-white? No. From my research no Europeans were considered non-white. That does not mean they didn't face discrimination. This appears to be the problem. It's like people think you can't be white and discriminated against. That if you are white and discriminated against then you had to have been seen as non-white. This however can be shown to be not correct. It is the reason why Irish after a few generations became successful and powerful in their own right. Because they didn't face the legal discrimination that non-whites did. There is a lot of falsehoods posted online these days and people will just copy and repeat what they see posted without any fact checking.

That's what happens to you for being too Asian or ANE.

JK

[R1b-L51]

The Anglosphere and Hispanic world would never united the tentions have always been there from the old world to the New world.

It crashes when you try to put them together why? Because both seek dominance.

It's not even that, you can't unite Christian Humanism with Calvinist Determinism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War

[Grace O'Malley]

To be honest many Irish look racially ambiguous (not trying to provoke you or anything I like you) remember when the Irish teen was racist to a Mexican tourist in Ireland? Ironically the Mexican looks whiter.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCrRwS7GQ6c&pp=ygUZSXJsYW5kZWFhIHJhY2lzdGEgbWV4aWNubw%3D%3D

This wouldn't be just Irish though would it? There are people in every ethnicity that people claim look ambiguous. Irish by the vast majority though look very unambiguously European. There are a lot of other European ethnicities that have a far higher percentage of people that people would claim look ambiguous than the Irish. Also I don't agree that Mexican man looks whiter than the Irish girl. That's an exaggeration. :)

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/06/11/20/14661906-7129681-image-a-23_1560282003719.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/bY7K1zSF/Screenshot-2025-03-12-144822.png

Anyway she targeted him for speaking Spanish not because he was non-white. She was just an ignorant child.

[Your Old Comrade]

It's not even that, you can't unite Christian Humanism with Calvinist Determinism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War

I guess we found a way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillarisation

[Nurzat]

Straight out of a progressive leftist's handbook.

I am a progressive leftist but that still sounds stupid to me - because I am not woke. I think wokism shouldn't even be labeled as leftism, they do nothing for the workers, they are only interested in race and gender politics, and they have an extremely clan-like adhesion to their group and hate for other groups, that is not very lefty.

they kind of occupied the left in the west to derail it from workers' rights, so that corporations can become richer and richer and dismiss workers's rights, move work outside of the territory where they do business (outsource, rightshore etc) and have left mean just ridiculous claims made by privileged middle and upper-middle class hipsters

[J. Ketch]

"White" is an amorphous term with no fixed boundaries, and it can be stretched like clay to fit one's subjective opinions on a wide range of things. I'm no big fan of Coon's taxonomy, which seems a bit like phrenology at times, but I still like the "antiquated" racial categories that offend woke people even when no claims of racial superiority are made, and it's clear that "Negroid" would make their heads explode, although that term makes more sense than "Black" (a second political and social construct) because many Black people have much lighter skin than many White people. I use "Caucasoid" in lieu of "White", and I use the "horribly offensive" "Mongoloid" too like the 1965 anthropology fan that I am. People freak out when I call Vivek Ramaswamy White.
Standards have certainly dropped since Ben Franklin.

[Nurzat]

...

girl passes as British, Icelandic, Western Norwegian, French, even Hungarian or Romanian.

lacks something I cannot tell to pass well in Central Europe and lacks a strong Eastern vibe to pass in Ukraine/Slavic lands.

so she passes in the North, bar that, and bar the Med.

doesn't give off real Mediterranean vibes in terms of facial bone structure, while the man looks unmistakably Mediterranean.

that to touch only on the looks, I won't comment the situation.

[Jased]

[QUOTE=Grace O'Malley;8186339].../QUOTE]

the girl looks like passing as British, French, even Romanian (a bit too gracile for Central Europe, so I'd place her at the fringes of the North, but still with a facial structure closer to North than to South), and doesn't give off real Mediterranean vibes in terms of facial bone structure, while the man looks unmistakably Mediterranean. that just to discuss looks, I wont go into their quarrel, that is just local interest news at most.

Yeah to me the Mexican man looks Mediterranean.

On the News Tumblr he looks like he could pass In France. Also I don't put too much trust when it comes to pictures one wrong angles that's only it takes you to distort your features.

But he looks white to me (med)

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTkq4fVg5nJ60cc-KxV53MXUW19C-eVAb8lpg&s


The one Grace posted looks indeed darker , but I've seen Portuguese like that too.

[Nurzat]

But he looks white to me (med)

sure, they both look Euro. she looks NW, he looks SW. they both must have same ancestors, but in different amounts: Mesolithic WHG, Iron Age Celtic and Anatolian Farmer.

Irish vs Spaniards is like Ukrainians vs Greeks, both have Slavic and Balkan Neolithic Farmer as main components.

[Jased]

Anyway since apparently the Mexican man doesn't look white enough to Grace , I found a Mexican girl who looks whiter and ironically more Irish than the own Irish teen. xD :P

https://i.ibb.co/whQW7mQ3/Screenshot-20250312-024647-2.png

[Grace O'Malley]

Anyway since apparently the Mexican man doesn't look white enough to Grace , I found a Mexican girl who looks whiter and ironically more Irish than the own Irish teen. xD :P

https://i.ibb.co/whQW7mQ3/Screenshot-20250312-024647-2.png

I never said he didn't look white enough. I said that you exaggerated that he looked whiter than the Irish girl. Stop being silly. :) There are loads of Irish that have that colouring. It's common in Ireland.

[gixajo]

A Frenchman coined the infamous saying that "Africa start at the Pyrenees". Was it because Spaniards looked darker / less White than ethnic Frenchmen?

It refers to the difference or contrast between the absolutist Spain of the 19th century and the more liberal and developed France of the time...

[Jased]

I never said he didn't look white enough. I said that you exaggerated that he looked whiter than the Irish girl. Stop being silly. :) There are loads of Irish that have that colouring. It's common in Ireland.

I know I was being a dork :P by the way did you know red hair Is actually more common than any shade of blonde In Mexico? .

Spaniards are Celtic people don't forget.

[Grace O'Malley]

I know I was being a dork :P by the way did you know red hair Is actually more common than any shade of blonde In Mexico? .

Spaniards are Celtic people don't forget.

Red hair is not really "Celtic". Take some of these with a pinch of salt. These crop up from a Google search. Blond hair is still more common in Ireland and Scotland than red hair but they both have the highest percentage of redheads per capita.

https://64.media.tumblr.com/12a17938c8be84f975bdeccd2ab1e488/a9dad40b0493dc83-e5/s640x960/1c3a3e7632b54b2ed802392c4242666df64dd2a2.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/2ShKD6rN/Screenshot-2025-03-12-184352.png

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/11/25/1385379058856/5cb3b886-25b4-4d49-8ffd-b34a651a133c-620x385.png?width=445&dpr=1&s=none&crop=none

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/11/25/1385384379322/32c861e2-40bf-4fbe-bc52-8a342f6cbf64-620x372.jpeg?width=1200&height=630&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&overlay-align=bottom%2Cleft&overlay-width=100p&overlay-base64=L2ltZy9zdGF0aWMvb3ZlcmxheXMvdGctYWdlLTIwMTM ucG5n&enable=upscale&

https://i.postimg.cc/TPS05vRJ/Screenshot-2025-03-12-184919.png

https://i.postimg.cc/QdKHN2y3/Screenshot-2025-03-12-185310.png

[Lard]

Making the Case That the Natufians Were White: A Genetic and Phenotypic Analysis:
The claim that the Natufians were white is a controversial but intriguing topic. To make a strong case, we need to break this down into genetics, cranial morphology, and historical context to see if they align more with what we would consider "white" in modern terms.
________________________________________
1. Genetic Evidence: Natufians and Their European-Related Ancestry:
The Natufian culture (c. 12,500–9,500 BC) was a Mesolithic civilization located in the Levant, primarily modern-day Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. Their genetic structure provides some interesting clues about their relationship to modern populations.
Y-DNA (Paternal Lineages):
The Natufians were heavily dominated by haplogroup E-M78 and E-Z830, which today is mostly found in North Africans, some Europeans (particularly Southern Europeans and Balkans), and Near Easterners.
This is significant because it shows early Natufians were not closely related to Sub-Saharan Africans despite some outdated claims that they had African ancestry.
Instead, they cluster closer to early pre-Neolithic Europeans and Near Eastern populations, meaning their genetics were more West Eurasian than anything else.
mtDNA (Maternal Lineages):
The mitochondrial DNA of Natufians shows a heavy presence of U6 and other Eurasian markers, again showing connections to Europeans and North Africans rather than Sub-Saharan Africans.
Haplogroup U6, while commonly associated with North Africa today, has clear links to prehistoric Cro-Magnon Europeans, meaning these Natufians could have looked more like early Europeans than like modern Middle Easterners or Africans.
Autosomal DNA (General Genetic Makeup):
Natufians show clear West Eurasian affinities and are closer to Europeans than to Sub-Saharan Africans.
They contributed significantly to the Anatolian Neolithic Farmers who later populated Europe, meaning they were part of the same genetic continuum as early European populations.
Conclusion on Genetics:
The genetic data suggests that the Natufians were not African, nor were they like modern Middle Easterners.
Instead, they were a West Eurasian population closely related to pre-Neolithic Europeans.
This makes it reasonable to argue that they were "white" in the prehistoric sense, at least in terms of ancestry.
________________________________________
2. Phenotypic (Cranial and Skeletal) Analysis: Did Natufians Look European?
Cranial Features:
The Natufian skulls show gracile, dolichocephalic (long-headed) features, which align more closely with Mediterranean and European populations rather than African or even modern Middle Eastern types.
Studies by C.L. Brace (1993) and others have classified Natufians as part of the Caucasoid skull morphology, distinct from Negroid or Mongoloid classifications.
This suggests they likely looked more like early Southern Europeans or Mediterranean people rather than anything "non-white."
Skin Color & Eye Color:
While ancient DNA from this specific group hasn’t been tested for pigmentation, related populations such as Anatolian farmers and early Europeans had a range of skin tones, from light to tan.
Since Natufians contributed significantly to Neolithic Europeans, it is likely that they had a mix of lighter and darker phenotypes, similar to early Mediterranean Europeans.
Conclusion on Phenotype:
Natufians had Caucasoid skull structure and likely did not look Sub-Saharan African.
They probably had a Mediterranean-like appearance, akin to early Greeks, Sicilians, or Levantine populations before later admixtures.
If found today, they would likely be classified as “white” or at least Mediterranean Caucasoid.
________________________________________
3. Historical and Cultural Context: Why This Matters:
The Natufians are often misrepresented in discussions about race. Some argue they were African due to outdated theories, but modern genetics debunks this entirely. Others assume they must have looked like modern Middle Easterners, but their connection to early Europeans and Anatolians suggests they were part of the same prehistoric Caucasoid continuum.
The fact that Natufians played a major role in the ancestry of later European and Near Eastern populations suggests they were not some foreign, alien group but rather a key West Eurasian population.
Their genetic and phenotypic profile places them within the spectrum of ancient "white" populations, especially when compared to modern definitions.
________________________________________
Final Verdict: Were the Natufians White?
Based on genetics, skull morphology, and historical context, the Natufians were an ancient West Eurasian population that had more in common with early Europeans and Mediterranean groups than with Sub-Saharan Africans or later Middle Easterners.
Would they be "white" by today’s modern standards? Likely yes, in the same way that Neolithic Europeans, ancient Greeks, and early Anatolians would be considered white today. Their genetic legacy is still present in Southern Europeans, North Africans, and Levantines, but in antiquity, they were part of the same broad Caucasoid racial category that included early Europeans.
So if someone argues that the Natufians were white, they actually have a solid case based on genetics and anthropology—certainly a stronger case than those who try to claim they were African or unrelated to early Europeans.

[Lard]

Making the Case That the Natufians Were Culturally White: Their Architectural and Artistic Choices:
Beyond genetics and phenotype, the Natufians' cultural expressions—especially their architectural and artistic traditions—suggest strong links to early European and Mediterranean civilizations, reinforcing the argument that they were part of the West Eurasian, "white" cultural sphere rather than anything African or Middle Eastern in the later sense.
________________________________________
1. Natufian Architecture: A Precursor to Greek and European Styles:
One of the most striking aspects of Natufian culture is their semi-sedentary lifestyle, which led them to construct circular stone dwellings—a hallmark of early European and Mediterranean architecture.
• Circular Dwellings & Stone Foundations
o Natufians were among the first humans to build permanent stone structures, predating even the Neolithic revolution.
o These homes closely resemble early Mediterranean architecture, including early Cycladic, Greek, and even proto-Italic roundhouse traditions.
o Compare this to African or even early Semitic architecture, which tended toward mud-brick and non-circular designs—Natufians instead opted for solid stone, a characteristic more associated with later European builders.
• Comparison to Greek Tholos Architecture
o The Tholos tombs of Mycenaean Greece (c. 1600–1100 BC) are strikingly similar to Natufian circular stone dwellings in both design and function.
o While separated by thousands of years, this shows a cultural continuity between early Natufians and later West Eurasian civilizations, suggesting that Natufians had an architectural mindset that aligned with what would later become "white" Mediterranean culture.
________________________________________
2. Natufian Burial Practices & Greek-like Funerary Traditions:
• Skull Cults and Funerary Rites
o The Natufians practiced burial customs that included skull veneration, a trait found later among Anatolian, Greek, and Balkan cultures.
o Similar practices appeared in Minoan Crete and Neolithic Europe, where skulls were preserved, sometimes painted, and placed in special burial sites.
o This suggests that Natufians were part of a West Eurasian cultural network that later influenced early Greek and Mediterranean traditions.
• Personal Adornment in Death
o Some Natufian graves contained decorated skeletons with personal ornaments, a practice common in European megalithic burials but absent in early African traditions.
o This ritualistic focus on the individual aligns with later Greek and Indo-European traditions, reinforcing the idea that Natufians were closer to early European peoples than to Semitic or African groups.
________________________________________
3. Artistic Traditions: The Natufians and Proto-Mediterranean Aesthetics:
• Use of Geometric Art and Symbols
o The Natufians produced geometric patterns and stylized animal figures, which would later be seen in Cycladic, Greek, and Italic art.
o The preference for abstract and symbolic representations, rather than highly naturalistic African-style depictions, aligns with Indo-European and Mediterranean artistic trends.
• Figurines and Anthropomorphic Art
o The Natufians created human figurines, similar to Neolithic European Venus figurines found in places like Malta and the Balkans.
o Unlike African carvings, which tend to exaggerate certain features, Natufian figurines leaned toward stylized but realistic human forms, much like early Greek and Mediterranean art.
• Stone Tool Aesthetics: Aegean & Levantine Connections
o Natufians used polished microliths and flint tools in ways that strongly resemble early Aegean and Anatolian Neolithic cultures.
o Their obsession with symmetry and clean-cut designs shows an early Mediterranean artistic sensibility, one that would later develop into the Greek and Etruscan appreciation for proportion and form.
________________________________________
4. Cultural Influence on Early Mediterranean Civilization:
• Natufians as a Proto-Mediterranean People
o Given their architecture, funerary traditions, and artistic expressions, the Natufians were clearly part of a West Eurasian cultural and aesthetic sphere.
o Later Mediterranean civilizations inherited many of their fundamental ideas about construction, burial practices, and artistic representation.
o The Greeks, Minoans, and even early Italic tribes carried forward cultural traditions that can be traced back to Natufian innovations.
• If the Greeks Were White, the Natufians Were Too
o If we define whiteness culturally, then the Natufians fit squarely within the lineage of early white civilizations that gave rise to the Mediterranean world.
o Their stone-based architecture, funerary rites, and artistic traditions place them in the same continuum as later European cultures, far removed from African or Near Eastern traditions.
________________________________________
Final Verdict: Natufians as a Culturally "White" People:
The Natufians were not just genetically and phenotypically West Eurasian—they were also culturally aligned with later Greek, Balkan, and Mediterranean civilizations. Their use of stone architecture, burial practices, geometric artistic traditions, and aesthetic preferences show clear links to proto-European and early Mediterranean traditions, reinforcing the argument that they were part of a white cultural sphere long before the emergence of classical European civilizations.
If we acknowledge the Greeks, Romans, and early Mediterraneans as white, then by extension, the Natufians—who helped lay the cultural and genetic foundations for these groups—must also be considered part of the same racial and cultural lineage.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

"White" is an amorphous term with no fixed boundaries, and it can be stretched like clay to fit one's subjective opinions on a wide range of things. I'm no big fan of Coon's taxonomy, which seems a bit like phrenology at times, but I still like the "antiquated" racial categories that offend woke people even when no claims of racial superiority are made, and it's clear that "Negroid" would make their heads explode, although that term makes more sense than "Black" (a second political and social construct) because many Black people have much lighter skin than many White people. I use "Caucasoid" in lieu of "White", and I use the "horribly offensive" "Mongoloid" too like the 1965 anthropology fan that I am. People freak out when I call Vivek Ramaswamy White.

Mexicans of Jared/Laredo variety have always been considered White except for one census when 'Mexican' was used as a category but it didn't apply to White looking Mexicans but only those that looked mixed. The Mexican government complained and so 'Mexican' is no longer a racial category.

It amuses me that technically in the US comedian George Lopez is White and he looks more Injun than most Injuns.

[Purple Panther]

Standards have certainly dropped since Ben Franklin.

That's nothing. Standards have dropped since last night.

[Purple Panther]

It amuses me that technically in the US comedian George Lopez is White and he looks more Injun than most Injuns.

He does. That's especially true in the case of Elizabeth Warren and the blonde boy whose great-great-great-grandmother was a Choctaw princess.

[Purple Panther]

I am a progressive leftist but that still sounds stupid to me - because I am not woke. I think wokism shouldn't even be labeled as leftism, they do nothing for the workers, they are only interested in race and gender politics, and they have an extremely clan-like adhesion to their group and hate for other groups, that is not very lefty.

they kind of occupied the left in the west to derail it from workers' rights, so that corporations can become richer and richer and dismiss workers's rights, move work outside of the territory where they do business (outsource, rightshore etc) and have left mean just ridiculous claims made by privileged middle and upper-middle class hipsters

They broke away from traditional leftists like how Mormons broke away from traditional Christians. In their case, they replaced workers with "victims" in a bizarre way that claimed that impoverished White men oppressed wealthy Black women and famous gay celebrities. It's just cultural Marxism (all straight White men are bourgeoisie while all protected groups are various forms of the proletariat, but the most ironic thing is that much of the new aristocracy embraces cultural Marxism (CRT, DEI, trans fad "wokeism")) that took the place of actual Marxism, but they still are supporters of actual Marxism, which they know could not be as popular in these times as it was when classism was more virulent in the West. I doubt that *Marx* would be a Marxist now.

[Purple Panther]

https://i.postimg.cc/bY7K1zSF/Screenshot-2025-03-12-144822.png

Anyway she targeted him for speaking Spanish not because he was non-white. She was just an ignorant child.

She wouldn't stand out in any Southern European country, especially Spain. I might even look more Irish than she does, but she doesn't look like Jenny from the block.

[Oliver109]

Anyway since apparently the Mexican man doesn't look white enough to Grace , I found a Mexican girl who looks whiter and ironically more Irish than the own Irish teen. xD :P

https://i.ibb.co/whQW7mQ3/Screenshot-20250312-024647-2.png

That shouldn't be surprising in Mexico, it's gonna be a predictable comment of mine but I have seen many Tajiks online who look more Irish than the Irish teen i.e blue eyed or medium brown haired.

[Purple Panther]

Red hair is not really "Celtic". Take some of these with a pinch of salt. These crop up from a Google search. Blond hair is still more common in Ireland and Scotland than red hair but they both have the highest percentage of redheads per capita.

https://64.media.tumblr.com/12a17938c8be84f975bdeccd2ab1e488/a9dad40b0493dc83-e5/s640x960/1c3a3e7632b54b2ed802392c4242666df64dd2a2.jpg



I saw a map of the USA that showed that the locations, with the most redheaded citizens, were northeastern Tennessee and southwestern Virginia. You find both breeds of Gael there, so it makes sense.

[Purple Panther]

[QUOTE=Nurzat;8186348]

Yeah to me the Mexican man looks Mediterranean.

On the News Tumblr he looks like he could pass In France. Also I don't put too much trust when it comes to pictures one wrong angles that's only it takes you to distort your features.

But he looks white to me (med)

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTkq4fVg5nJ60cc-KxV53MXUW19C-eVAb8lpg&s


The one Grace posted looks indeed darker , but I've seen Portuguese like that too.

I think that her coloring is similar to various Med groups, and I bet that she looks similar to some Mexican girls. Am I right about her not sticking out in some parts of Mexicano? You know better than I do that some girls in your tribe have light skin with dark eyes and dark hair. I went out with a 100% Mexican girl like that.

[Oliver109]

[QUOTE=Jased;8186349]

I think that her coloring is similar to various Med groups, and I bet that she looks similar to some Mexican girls. Am I right about her not sticking out in some parts of Mexicano? You know better than I do that some girls in your tribe have light skin with dark eyes and dark hair. I went out with a 100% Mexican girl like that.

She looks Hispanic, funnily enough even in southern France the average brunet is more caucasoid looking, if I saw the Irish girl in London I would think she might be mixed.

[Purple Panther]

[QUOTE=Anglo-Celtic;8186526]if I saw the Irish girl in London I would think she might be mixed.

Let's not go too far. She's far from Halle Berry territory.

By the way, what's with the quote feature? Maybe my morning rush messed it up.

[robertb]

This entire thread is silly. The Irish and Italians faced some discrimination from the natives because many came in large waves of immigration and being Catholic in a mainly Protestant country and not because of their race.

The Brits where equal enslavers, they sent Irish, English and Scots to work on their plantations.

[Beowulf]

How half of this thread became a discussion of Mexican and Irish phenotypes?

[Oliver109]

This entire thread is silly. The Irish and Italians faced some discrimination from the natives because many came in large waves of immigration and being Catholic in a mainly Protestant country and not because of their race.

The Brits where equal enslavers, they sent Irish, English and Scots to work on their plantations.

Not at all true, the Irish were always seen by the British as representing a more archaic form of man, the British have always regarded the Catholic French or Austrians as more similar in many regards, while Ireland speaks the same language now there are still many differences in culture to Britain.

[robertb]

Not at all true, the Irish were always seen by the British as representing a more archaic form of man, the British have always regarded the Catholic French or Austrians as more similar in many regards, while Ireland speaks the same language now there are still many differences in culture to Britain.

I was talking about the Irish experience in America. The French and Austrians where not basically serfs to the British like the Irish, very common to de-humanize groups in that position. Or do the same with an enemy, the US had cartoons of Japanese as basically apes during the war.

[Oliver109]

I was talking about the Irish experience in America. The French and Austrians where not basically serfs to the British like the Irish, very common to de-humanize groups in that position. Or do the same with an enemy, the US had cartoons of Japanese as basically apes during the war.

Well the Nazis called the Japanese the Aryans of the east, that's more flattering than language they used to their allies the Spanish, I don't think the US at the time was aware of how clever the Japanese are.

[Jased]

[QUOTE=Jased;8186349]

I think that her coloring is similar to various Med groups, and I bet that she looks similar to some Mexican girls. Am I right about her not sticking out in some parts of Mexicano? You know better than I do that some girls in your tribe have light skin with dark eyes and dark hair. I went out with a 100% Mexican girl like that.

She looks European, I'm surrounded by mexicans of all types from looking Northern European , to mixed and George Lopez types.

But yeah she wouldn't stand out among the Mexican girls that I work in the office.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

Well the Nazis called the Japanese the Aryans of the east, that's more flattering than language they used to their allies the Spanish, I don't think the US at the time was aware of how clever the Japanese are.

Oh, what language did the Nazis use?

The Nazis refered to anyone they needed in glowing terms and so hence why Croats weren't seen as Slavs because Slav equaled bad.

I guess they missed the part where Croatian is a Slavic language.

[Oliver109]

Oh, what language did the Nazis use?

The Nazis refered to anyone they needed in glowing terms and so hence why Croats weren't seen as Slavs because Slav equated bad.

What about the Serbs? Some look quite British as you know I have said, as for the croats they are not as Slavic looking as Poles etc.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

What about the Serbs? Some look quite British as you know I have said, as for the croats they are not as Slavic looking as Poles etc.

Answer my question and I will educate you further because you're objectively dumb as shit.

[Oliver109]

Answer my question and I will educate you further because you're objectively dumb as shit.

I dunno, perhaps Hitler saw more Germanic traits in Croats? As personal experience would go dealing with Poles they don't come across in anyway as like western Europeans so in a sense I know why Hitler didn't have much respect for them.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

I dunno, perhaps Hitler saw more Germanic traits in Croats? As personal experience would go dealing with Poles they don't come across in anyway as like western Europeans so in a sense I know why Hitler didn't have much respect for them.

I'm glad no woman will breed with you.

Germans - in particular - Austrians have a history of antagonism toward Serbia because Serbia was a political rival in the Balkans (especially over B&H), while Croats had been loyal to the Austrians for centuries when under their authority.

You learned something from me and so now I should learn from you: what did the Nazis think of Spaniards?

[Friends of Oliver Society]

I dunno, perhaps Hitler saw more Germanic traits in Croats? As personal experience would go dealing with Poles they don't come across in anyway as like western Europeans so in a sense I know why Hitler didn't have much respect for them.

You really do know much about Nazi racial ideology... 'Poles are like different and stuff when you interact with them... based on my experience and so like that must be the reason..."

[Oliver109]

You really do know much about Nazi racial ideology... 'Poles are like different and stuff when you interact with them... based on my experience and so like that must be the reason..."

It makes sense to me, Polish people don't really have a western mindset and that contrasts greatly with the German ideals, interestingly the Spanish have in some ways quite a German mindset, even the blogger Akinokure mentioned that in his blog.

[Opie]

I dunno, perhaps Hitler saw more Germanic traits in Croats? As personal experience would go dealing with Poles they don't come across in anyway as like western Europeans so in a sense I know why Hitler didn't have much respect for them.

Nazis classified Turks as Europeans. After that every MENA nation wanted to be classified as European by Nazis during that time but I doubt most Europeans view Turks as Europeans.

Turkey was their former ally. It was more like a political move.

[Opie]

I'm glad no woman will breed with you.


:biggrin

[Friends of Oliver Society]

It makes sense to me, Polish people don't really have a western mindset and that contrasts greatly with the German ideals, interestingly the Spanish have in some ways quite a German mindset, even the blogger Akinokure mentioned that in his blog.

It makes sense to you because you're legitimately stupid.

Hitler is Germanic. Slavs are rivals of Germanics for territory. Hitler believed for Germans to grow and prosper it needed Slavic land. Poland, Ukraine, and Russia are very fertile land.

An elementary explanation for the low IQ.

I'll ask the question a third time: what did Nazis think of Spaniards?

[Oliver109]

Nazis classified Turks as Europeans. After that every MENA nation wanted to be classified as European by Nazis during that time but I doubt most Europeans view Turks as Europeans.

Turkey was their former ally. It was more like a political move.

I don't understand why they viewed Turkish as Europeans

[Friends of Oliver Society]

I don't understand why they viewed Turkish as Europeans

Because as an autist you think what goes on in your head and makes sense to you matters more than the needs and objectives of a political group at the time.

[Oliver109]

Because as an autist you think what goes on in your head and makes sense to you matters more than the needs and objectives of a political group at the time.

Well most of what the Nazis said makes sense, I would say though that I find Turkish people more similar to the Spanish than the Poles, they get something of a bad rap but as an immigrant group they are certainly more preferable than north Africans or Pakistanis.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

Well most of what the Nazis said makes sense, I would say though that I find Turkish people more similar to the Spanish than the Poles, they get something of a bad rap but as an immigrant group they are certainly more preferable than north Africans or Pakistanis.

Why do you think the Nazis were favorable to Turks?

I'll ask my other question a fourth time: what did Nazis think of Spaniards? You made a statement of fact and yet when asked three times about it you ignore my question.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

In what ways did Nazis make sense? You seem completely surprised about a few things brought up that was common knowledge and so let me know what made sense to you?

[Oliver109]

Why do you think the Nazis were favorable to Turks?

I'll ask my other question a fourth time: what did Nazis think of Spaniards? You made a statement of fact and yet when asked three times about it you ignore my question.

Hitler regarded Spain as an ally though I don't think he especially praised Spaniards.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

Hitler regarded Spain as an ally though I don't think he especially praised Spaniards.

Actually. he's on record praising Spaniards (who he also thought were undisciplned, which is ironic since Hitler's major flaw was his lack of personal discipline) but also thought Spanish women were stupid.

So now the question is why do you make comments that you don't know are true?

[Oliver109]

Actually., he's on record praising Spaniards but also thought Spanish women were stupid.

So now the question is why do you make comments that you don't know are true?

Well I never regarded Hitler as someone who had unlimited praise for Southern Europeans, where is his quote about Spanish women?

[Friends of Oliver Society]

Well I never regarded Hitler as someone who had unlimited praise for Southern Europeans, where is his quote about Spanish women?

No one said anything about unlimited praise and what you thought has as much value as any other person who talks nonsense because he thinks whatever thought pops in their head has value because it came from their 80 IQ brain.

The source and the only place where it ever mentions him speaking of Spaniards is Hitler's Table talk. Btw, read my previous post. I added Hitler's criticism of Spanish lack of discipline. So it's not all praise but nothing racial, as you implied because you say whatever nonsense you think is true because it makes sense to you.

[Oliver109]

No one said anything about unlimited praise and what you thought has as much value as any other person who talks nonsense because he thinks whatever thought pops in their head has value because it came from their 80 IQ brain.

The source and the only place where it ever mentions him speaking of Spaniards is Hitler's Table talk. Btw, read my previous post. I added Hitler's criticism of Spanish lack of discipline. So it's not all praise but nothing racial, as you implied because you say whatever nonsense you think is true because it makes sense to you.

Well Hitler had strong insights into the Spanish character, he's certainly correct about the discipline aspect.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

Btw, lolz at Your Old Comrade. He'll even TU Oliver's posts if he contradicts me. It doesn't matter how stupid a person is and the stupidity they say YOC will be there to give support.

How about you get a job, you lazy fuck? If you can post on a forum you can get work.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

Well Hitler had strong insights into the Spanish character, he's certainly correct about the discipline aspect.

Hitler is repeating a sterorype. How is it an insight if that is a common belief?

If I say you're an idiot it's not insightful because everyone here thinks you're an idiot.

[Oliver109]

Hitler is repeating a sterorype. How is it an insight if that is a common belief?

If I say you're an idiot it's not insightful because everyone here thinks you're an idiot.

It's not a stereotype, for example the Italians are known for only taking cash payments to save tax, I imagine Spain is like that still, on the other hand in France virtually everywhere takes card payment because people feel they have to pay tax and the police probably enforce it more rigorously.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

It's not a stereotype, for example the Italians are known for only taking cash payments to save tax, I imagine Spain is like that still, on the other hand in France virtually everywhere takes card payment because people feel they have to pay tax and the police probably enforce it more rigorously.

Are you illiterate? Tell me the definition of stereotype.

Ironically, you say it's not a stereotype of Spaniards and use as an example Italians, not Spaniards.

Dumb at two different levels.

But ignoring your stupidity let's find out if you're illiterate. What is a stereotype? What does that word mean?

[Friends of Oliver Society]

Well the Nazis called the Japanese the Aryans of the east, that's more flattering than language they used to their allies the Spanish, I don't think the US at the time was aware of how clever the Japanese are.

https://i.imgur.com/DQL3NVh.jpeg

From Hitler's Table Talks

This whole forum is full of you saying shit than can easily be proven wrong.

[Oliver109]

https://i.imgur.com/DQL3NVh.jpeg

From Hitler's Table Talks

This whole forum is full of you saying shit than can easily be proven wrong.

Well he didn't go as far as saying they are the Aryans of the south....

[Friends of Oliver Society]

Well he didn't go as far as saying they are the Aryans of the south....

I've been looking all over and no where do I find a legitimate source for this claim of Hitler referring to Japanese as honorary Aryans. It's just assumed to be true.

So where did you get your info? Quroa? Because that's where I saw the specific quote.

If they were 'honorary Aryans' it's for the same reason individuals were given that status: there was a benefit to the Nazis for doing so.

[Oliver109]

I've been looking all over and no where do I find a legitimate source for this claim of Hitler referring to Japanese as honorary Aryans. It's just assumed to be true.

So where did you get your info? Quroa? Because that's where I saw the specific quote.

If they were 'honorary Aryans' it's for the same reason individuals were given that status: there was a benefit to the Nazis for doing so.

The Japanese have a lot of Aryan traits, it's quite obvious when you look at their creativity, love of order and social graces, the Ainu also seem to be linked phenotypically with the Tajiks sharing similar physical traits, again a link with Cro magnon man ultimately.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

Well he didn't go as far as saying they are the Aryans of the south....

You're dumb as fuck.

https://i.imgur.com/qL0vqaM.jpeg

https://i.imgur.com/yPenAR2.jpeg

[Friends of Oliver Society]

The Japanese have a lot of Aryan traits, it's quite obvious when you look at their creativity, love of order and social graces, the Ainu also seem to be linked phenotypically with the Tajiks sharing similar physical traits, again a link with Cro magnon man ultimately.

It was bullshit. It's quite obvious you got the quote from quroa (only place online found) and you just believe whatever comes across your dull eyes because you are legitimately stupid.

You have no shame. You'll give a bullshit explanation just because you feel the need to say something (but without answering the question).. There is no evidence that Japanese were considered honorary Aryans just you repeating other people's nonsense.

I don't care about your other low IQ fantasy aboit Ainu or Tajiks.

[Oliver109]

It was bullshit. It's quite obvious you got the quote from quroa (only place online found) and you just believe whatever comes across your dull eyes because you are legitimately stupid.

You have no shame. You'll give a bullshit explanation just because you feel need to say something (bit without anseering the question).. There is no evidence that Japanese were considered honorary Aryans just you repeating other people's nonsense.

Well it's just myself having an admiration for Japanese culture, I mean they invented the PlayStation ffs, we are talking here about an exceptional people with traits that are seldom found in other populations.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

Well it's just myself having an admiration for Japanese culture, I mean they invented the PlayStation ffs, we are talking here about an exceptional people with traits that are seldodm found in other populations.

Did you claim that Hitler called the Japanese Aryans? Is there evidence of Hitler or the Nazis party classifying the Japanese as Aryans or even honorary Aryans?

Please answer the questions instead of autistically telling me shit I don't care about.

[Oliver109]

Did you claim that Hitler called the Japanese Aryans? Is there evidence of Hitler or the Nazis party classifying the Japanese as Aryans or even honorary Aryans?

Please answer the questions instead of autistically telling me shit I don't care about.

Well as I have said Hitler obviously had a high regard for the Japanese, that's all that has to be said.

[Opie]

It was bullshit. It's quite obvious you got the quote from quroa (only place online found) and you just believe whatever comes across your dull eyes because you are legitimately stupid.

You have no shame. You'll give a bullshit explanation just because you feel the need to say something (but without answering the question).. There is no evidence that Japanese were considered honorary Aryans just you repeating other people's nonsense.

I don't care about your other low IQ fantasy aboit Ainu or Tajiks.

Japanese are honorary aryans is a famous rumour circulating around the internet. According to your source it’s not true. I wonder who made it up if that’s the case.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

Well as I have said Hitler obviously had a high regard for the Japanese, that's all that has to be said.

No, you said more than that. Your words:

https://i.imgur.com/dbdIi5O.jpeg

Why do you lie to me? Why would you lie when you very well know I can refer to your post?

[Friends of Oliver Society]

Japanese are honorary aryans is a famous rumour circulating around the internet. According to your source it’s not true. I wonder who made it up if that’s the case.

It's explained in the first screenshot.

[Oliver109]

No, you said more than that. Your words:

https://i.imgur.com/dbdIi5O.jpeg

Why do you lie to me? Why would you lie when you very well know I can refer to your post?

I thought Hitler said that but if he didn't then I apologize, anyway he wouldn't approve of the modern state of Japan now with it's low birthrates and nihilism.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

I thought Hitler said that but if he didn't then I apologize, anyway he wouldn't approve of the modern state of Japan now with it's low birthrates and nihilism.

You think a lot of stupid shit and there is no 'if.' You got your quote from an idiot at Quroa because you're a dolt.

[Opie]

It's explained in the first screenshot.

Okay thanks. I didn’t carefully examined screenshots.

[Purple Panther]

Oliver is so weak. He won't even stand up for himself.

[Oliver109]

Oliver is so weak. He won't even stand up for himself.

I stand up for myself, the trouble is the Colonel doesn't seem to accept that my points have a lot of evidence behind them, perhaps something about those facts makes him feel uncomfortable?

[Purple Panther]

I stand up for myself, the trouble is the Colonel doesn't seem to accept that my points have a lot of evidence behind them, perhaps something about those facts makes him feel uncomfortable?

He slaps and smacks you around like a chump. You come across as "thank you, sir" in your replies to him. You just take the verbal abuse. I think that many of your theories are silly, but I won't bully you, especially since I sometimes suspect that you're pulling a "Borat" on us.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

Oliver is so weak. He won't even stand up for himself.

Lolz

He was wrong. He tried to hide it by lying I posted the evidence of what he actually said.

Is he suppose to double down on bullshit? If you're wrong, you're wrong. It's simple as that.

[Purple Panther]

Lolz

He was wrong. He tried to hide it by lying I posted the evidence of what he actually said.

Is he suppose to double down on bullshit? If you're wrong, you're wrong. It's simple as that.

I'm not defending the guy. I have *no* interest in white-knighting for a grown man.

[Oliver109]

He slaps and smacks you around like a chump. You come across as "thank you, sir" in your replies to him. You just take the verbal abuse. I think that many of your theories are silly, but I won't bully you, especially since I sometimes suspect that you're pulling a "Borat" on us.

Why are my theories silly? They are all backed up by evidence, genetics, writings, travels etc.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

I stand up for myself, the trouble is the Colonel doesn't seem to accept that my points have a lot of evidence behind them, perhaps something about those facts makes him feel uncomfortable?

Stupidity makes me uncomfortable. You constantly get caught saying stupid shit.

This is actually very revealing of AC's character. It doesn't matter if someone is right or wrong he expects them to 'stand up for themselves.'

Maybe you should make a thread about how you have nothing against me that I'll ignore or pretend words such as 'perpetual woes is me posts about your miserable personal life' means something totally different than what the words means because the guy who humiliated him lied to his virtual face because he knew AC would accept anything.

Sit down, AC. You had your chance to stand up for yourself and you failed.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

Why are my theories silly? They are all backed up by evidence, genetics, writings, travels etc.

They're not. You don't even understand what you read.

You're dumb. You constantly say stupid shit to the point people think you're a troll.

[Purple Panther]

Stupidity makes me uncomfortable. You constantly get caught say stupid shit.

This is actually very revealing of AC's character. It doesn't matter if someone is right or wrong he expects them to 'stand up themselves.'

Maybe you should make a thread about how you have nothing against me that I'll ignore or pretend words such as 'perpetual woes is me posts about your miserable personal life' means something totally different than what the words means because the guy who humiliated him lied to his virtual face because he knew AC would accept anything.

Sit down, AC. You had your chance to stand up for yourself and you failed.

You have no character. Go fuck yourself, you miserable piece of shit.

[Purple Panther]

Why are my theories silly? They are all backed up by evidence, genetics, writings, travels etc.

You make absurd claims. I support your right to do so.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

You have no character. Go fuck yourself, you miserable piece of shit.

You have no legs to stand on.

Let's speak of truth. What does this mean? "Your perpetual woes is me posts about your miserable personal life."

Games! CFG is playing games!

[Oliver109]

They're not. You don't even understand what you read.

You're dumb. You constantly say stupid shit to the point people think you're a troll.

People think I am a troll because they don't look at the books that were written by anthropologists who lived before the politically correct age, Tooting thought I was daft to say that some Japanese look Caucasoid influenced, we have the best resources available like Human phenotypes.net that inspires many of my threads and provides insight into different phenotypes and their origins.

[Purple Panther]

You have no legs to stand on.

Let's speak of truth. What does this mean? "Your perpetual woes is me posts about your miserable personal life."

Games! CFG is playing games!

You distort, exaggerate, lie, and twist. Go whine about your migraine headaches (you give them too).

[Friends of Oliver Society]

People think I am a troll because they don't look at the books that were written by anthropologists who lived before the politically correct age, Tooting thought I was daft to say that some Japanese look Caucasoid influenced, we have the best resources available like Human phenotypes.net that inspires many of my threads and provides insight into different phenotypes and their origins.

All that shit was the rage on these forums years ago and no one said the shit you do.

Tell me of the books you read on the subject. List them.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

You distort, exaggerate, lie, and twist. Go whine about your migraine headaches (you give them too).

I tell the truth and hence why you can't answer my question. You just evade. A simple question has you on a virtual cliff.

[Purple Panther]

I tell the truth and hence why you can't answer my question. You just evade. A simple question has you on a virtual cliff.

No one cares about your stupid games. Get that through your thick head, you motherfucking retard.

[Oliver109]

All that shit was the rage on these forums years ago and no one said the shit you do.

Tell me of the books you read on the subject. List them.

You know, Coons stuff, Beddoe, Madison Grant, Hooton, Ripley, other anthropologists who I am trying to remember right now.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

No one cares about your stupid games. Get that through your thick head, you motherfucking retard.

Get it through your head: you got humiliated and not only did you accept it but you got doubly humilated when you accepted a bullshit lie.

There is no coming back from that. You can't just decide to get back your dignity.

Games! It's all games!

Suddenly you're illiterate.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

You know, Coons stuff, Beddoe, Madison Grant, Hooton, Ripley, other anthropologists who I am trying to remember right now.

No, those are all of them because they're the English speakers and you can't read German, Swedish, or Italian.

Let me know when you caught up with the rest of the world and dabble in population genetics. There is much you can misunderstand and so it'll be fun to see what nonsense you come up with.

[Oliver109]

No, those are all of them because they're the English speakers and you can't read German, Swedish, or Italian.

Let me know when you caught up with the rest of the world and dabble in population genetics. There is much you can misunderstand and so it'll be fun to see what nonsense you come up with.

Genetics backs up everything I say too

[Friends of Oliver Society]

Genetics backs up everything I say too

You think so. You're also an idiot. When you have tried to do so I showed you were wrong.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

Didn't you say genetic studies prove Alpines are from like Iran or some shit? It was something retarded because you don't understand natural selection.

[Purple Panther]

Get it through your head: you got humiliated and not only did you accept it but you got doubly humilated when you accepted a bullshit lie.

There is no coming back from that. You can't just decide to get back your dignity.

Games! It's all games!

Suddenly you're illiterate.

No one cares. Are you stupid (rhetorical question)?

[Oliver109]

Didn't you say genetic studies prove Alpines are from like Iran or some shit? It was something retarded because you don't understand natural selection.

They certainly do, it's natural and environmental selection, clearly the environment acts on a type of cromagnon stock and it becomes alpine but the cromagnon traits of the alpine are well known.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

No one cares. Are you stupid (rhetorical question)?

You care. Now fuck off.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

They certainly do, it's natural and environmental selection, clearly the environment acts on a type of cromagnon stock and it becomes alpine but the cromagnon traits of the alpine are well known.

So a French 'Alpine' descends from the Middle East and so French Alpine clusters with Middle Eastern populations?

[Oliver109]

So a French 'Alpine' descends from the Middle East and so French Alpine clusters with Middle Eastern populations?

Yes they would descend from the Gravettians who were said to originate in the middle east.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

Yes they would descend from the Gravettians who were said to originate in the middle east.

Are you saying Alpines cluster genetically with Middle Easterners?

So Alpines descend from the same group so is a German Alpine genetically similar to a French Alpine?

[Oliver109]

You didn't answer the second part of my questions.

So Alpines descend from the same group so is a German Alpine genetically similar to a French Alpine?

The German would descend from Western hunter gatherers like the French who are related to Caucasus hunter gatherers.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

The German would descend from Western hunter gatherers like the French who are related to Caucasus hunter gatherers.

This is muddled. You need to clarify. Wait are you saying the GeGermans and French descend from groups with different ancient origins?

Do French and German Alpines cluster genetically together?

[~Elizabeth~]

:dizzy:

I never heard of Natufians before.

Why are you guys, ChatGPT & Oliver109, still arguing?

If I were you I would just walk away from this thread.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

:dizzy:

I never heard of Natufians before.

Why are you guys, ChatGPT & Oliver109, still arguing?

If I were you I would just walk away from this thread.

I have an interest in the insane.

[Purple Panther]

You care. Now fuck off.

I really don't. I don't share your mental illness.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

I really don't. I don't share your mental illness.

Show me you don't by fucking off. Go listen to a music playlist.

[~Elizabeth~]

I have an interest in the insane.

Wouldn't you rather relax in a bubble bath? I know I would but I don't have a bathtub. You can watch The Simpsons on YouTube or something more enjoyable than arguing with Oliver109. Don't let this give you a migraine or take away from your sleep. :hug2:

[Oliver109]

This is muddled. You need to clarify. Wait are you saying the GeGermans and French descend from groups with different ancient origins?

Do French and German Alpines cluster genetically together?

Well the populations are varied now but obviously alpines have a common ancestor that would have lived in the middle east about 50 000 years ago, it could even be linked with the Ainu ultimately.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

Wouldn't you rather relax in a bubble bath? I know I would but I don't have a bathtub. You can watch The Simpsons on YouTube or something more enjoyable than arguing with Oliver109. Don't let this give you a migraine or take away from your sleep. :hug2:

I find it amusing that this retard doesn't know he's a retard. He never sits back and thinks, "Why is it that no one agrees with me?'

There is also the dishonesty in this man that is annoying. You have tp badger him with the same question that he refuses to answer and when he does answer the question he pretends what he originally said was something different. No ability to admit he was wrong. Even when shown hard evidence he tries to dance around it ('well, if...) . There is no 'if.' The Japanese weren't seen as 'Aryans of the East' which is a sentence he got from someone at Quroa or Reddit because that's where idiots get their education.

I don't respect people like this: stupid and dishonest.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

Well the populations are varied now but obviously alpines have a common ancestor that would have lived in the middle east about 50 000 years ago, it could even be linked with the Ainu ultimately.

'Alpines' don't have a common origin. 'Alpines' are not related to Aniu.

How does it feel to know there are 11 year olds who know how natural selection works but you'd fail the same test?

You have no shame and so you don't care that children are better educated than you.

[Oliver109]

'Alpines' don't have a common origin. 'Alpines' are not related to Aniu.

How does it feel to know there are 11 year olds who know how natural selection works but you'd fail the same test?

You have no shame and so you don't care that children are better educated than you.

Doesn't genetics prove that people with red or light brown hair and light eyes have a common origin? As for Ainu well they clearly are related to caucasoids, even if they are australoid they still have a link to historical man.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

Doesn't genetics prove that people with red or light brown hair and light eyes have a common origin? As for Ainu well they clearly are related to caucasoids, even if they are australoid they still have a link to historical man.

There are a number of traits that come together to form an 'Alpine.' It's not just one trait.

Ainu are not related to Caucasoids. Genetic testing, how does it work? Nor are the Aniu Australoid.

[Purple Panther]

Doesn't genetics prove that people with red or light brown hair and light eyes have a common origin? As for Ainu well they clearly are related to caucasoids, even if they are australoid they still have a link to historical man.

He called you a stupid liar, and he called you a retard. Are you some kind of a masochist who loves to have discussions with verbally abusive cunts who take their frustrations out on you in a bullying and sadistic way (find your cajones, and put the insufferable creep in his place)?

[Oliver109]

There are a number of traits that come together to form an 'Alpine.' It's not just one trait.

Ainu are not related to Caucasoids. Genetic testing, how does it work? Nor are the Aniu Australoid.

Explain then because officially alpines are of intermediate complexion and stature, they are more homogeneous in form than nearly all other phenotypes.

[AndreiDNA]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS8b_a8Vf8A

Natufian DNA and traits

[Friends of Oliver Society]

Explain then because officially alpines are of intermediate complexion and stature, they are more homogeneous in form than nearly all other phenotypes.

Oh, are they? What is to explain? So called 'Alpines' don't cluster together genetically. They cluster within their ethnic group.

Here is a fun game: what is the height range of Alpines, Oliver?

Now explain why you think Ainu are related to Caucasoids despite no generic evidence and why - as a highly regarded internet anthropologist - you thought Ainu were Australoid. I other words, why do you consistently get shit wrong?

[Friends of Oliver Society]

He called you a stupid liar, and he called you a retard. Are you some kind of a masochist who loves to have discussions with verbally abusive cunts who take their frustrations out on you in a bullying and sadistic way (find your cajones, and put the insufferable creep in his place)?

He is stupid. He is a retard. He does lie. This is all objective true.

As always you picked the wrong pony. How can he put me in my place when even you know he says stupid shit?

[Oliver109]

Oh, are they? What is to explain? So called 'Alpines' don't cluster together genetically. They cluster within their ethnic group.

Here is a fun game: what is the height range of Alpines, Oliver?

Now explain why you think Ainu are related to Caucasoids despite no generic evidence and why - as a highly regarded internet anthropologist - you thought Ainu were Australoid. I other words, why do you consistently get shit wrong?

Alpines from France, Ireland, Tajikistan all belong to haplogroup R, as for height well they are typically fairly short but not as short as some berids and gracile meds, the east alpines and Strandids are slightly taller as are the Irish alpines. Australoids are basically proto caucasoids aren't they?

[Purple Panther]

He is stupid. He is a retard. He does lie. This is all objective true.

As always you picked the wrong pony. How can he put me in my place when even you know he says stupid shit?

My post wasn't addressed to you. There's no need to reply to this one.

[Grace O'Malley]

Alpines from France, Ireland, Tajikistan all belong to haplogroup R, as for height well they are typically fairly short but not as short as some berids and gracile meds, the east alpines and Strandids are slightly taller as are the Irish alpines. Australoids are basically proto caucasoids aren't they?

That's all made up. :)

[Purple Panther]

That's all made up. :)

He's probably roleplaying. I've been defending and supporting a comedy character who laughs at individuals who think that he's serious when he makes ludicrous claims....my cynical and skeptical sides would say. Of course, he might just be an extremely eccentric amateur anthropologist. His act might get on one's nerves at times, but it's not the crime of the century.

[Abaddon]

That doesn't really hold up. If swarthy Iberians can blend in seamlessly in Morocco, then an equally dark Moroccan should have no issue "passing" in Iberia. The overlap goes both ways—there are plenty of Moroccans who could fit into Iberia just as well as some Iberians fit in Morocco.

More than south asian untermenschen like you? hell no...!